Issues with the updated /find search results display

@Col_Needham​ 2. No sorry, this is the new display format. This new format also means a whole bunch of wasted white space in the middle of the screen. In that sense, it is similar to the new name page design, which has received criticism for similar reasons (too much wasted white space). There is definitely sufficient room in the middle of the screen to fit the numbers of titles for most if not all keywords of any length. I don't understand why IMDb would not want to use that wasted white space. Also, because the new design uses two lines for each keyword (one line for the keyword in a bold font, the second line for the number of titles) that means that the results extend much further down the screen than necessary. Since your keyword merge requests are manually reported and manually processed anyway, just do not worry about how they look. My concern is not so much how they look, but rather whether they will be formatted so that they are functional. I will probably now have to display groups of duplicate keywords vertically rather than horizontally. That could result in some very lengthy lists. There’s a smaller initial result set so as not to overwhelm people with results when it is likely their desired result is in the first set anyway, however, once a customer presses a “more” link there’s less reason to keep adding results in only 25 item chunks. 25 initial results is way too small for initial results for many searches. How about displaying 50 results initially, and then an additional 100 results each time the "More" button is clicked? I could work with that. It would basically mean having to click the button twice to get back to what the old design showed by default. Plus, it would also allow for up to 1,200 results with 12 clicks of the button (instead of 47 clicks), which would be nice to have that many results when needed. I would also love it if pushing the "Page-Down" button on a keyboard would extend the list (instead of having to click the "More" button each time), if that is possible.

I figured out a way to get back to the old display format -- at least for now. Simply logging out of my IMDb account, and then logging back in, works. Here are screenshots of the old display format, for comparison to the screenshots of the new display I posted above. For the "knife throat" search, when comparing the old version to the new version, it's clear that not only is the format different, but the ordering of the search results is different, too. The old search was more likely to incorporate different variations of words (and similar words) into the results and display them earlier in the results, while the new search is more strict about searching for the exact words entered and displaying those first in the results. I believe this is another reason why the initial results should display more than 25 results. With the new search format, if someone searches using a word like "decapitation," they won't see results like "decapitated-corpse" until much later than the first 25 results. I wish I could show screenshots of that for comparison purposes, but when I logged back in, I am now back to the old search results display (which I do prefer overall -- the only thing I like about the new display is the option of displaying up to 1,200 results).

@Col_Needham​ but there are good reasons for keeping the initial result set smaller. And there are also good reasons for my asking for more than 25 initial results. (It used to be up to 200 initial results, which means the new display reduces the numbers by 87.5% for many initial results.) I assume one of your reasons for wanting to keep the initial results smaller is to keep the length on the page shorter. If the numbers of titles were displayed on the same rows as the keywords, that would solve that issue. I assume another reason is to reduce the amount of data that has to flow from IMDb to the user. This is understandable, but all I am asking for is a compromise of up to 50 initial results (a 75% reduction from the old version, rather than the current 87.5% reduction as discussed above). Keep in mind that this would be "up to" 50 results. Many keyword searches will display less than 50 keywords (and often less than 25), anyway. But for the searches that would result in hundreds of results, it will help users to give an indication of that outcome by displaying the first 50 results (rather than just 25).

Here are the "knife throat" screenshots back to back (old format, then new format), for comparison purposes.

I have now been forced back into the new display for search results. :( I previously said: I believe this is another reason why the initial results should display more than 25 results. With the new search format, if someone searches using a word like "decapitation," they won't see results like "decapitated-corpse" until much later than the first 25 results. I wish I could show screenshots of that for comparison purposes, but when I logged back in, I am now back to the old search results display (which I do prefer overall -- the only thing I like about the new display is the option of displaying up to 1,200 results). Now that I am seeing the new display, I tested this, and sure enough -- when I search for the word "decapitation," the keyword "decapitated-corpse" does not appear within the first 25 results. Rather, it doesn't appear until result #48. The old search results did a "smarter" job of retrieving keywords based not only on the closeness of the wording but also the prevalence of keyword usage on the database, and it even flipped the searched words to retrieve relevant/prevalent keywords that might use the same words in a different order. The new results are much more strict about limiting the top 25 results to keywords that begin with the same words as searched in the same order, even if each keyword has only been used on 1 title. This can be quite limiting and give one a sense of tunnel vision or a filter bubble (pick whatever analogy you want to use) -- especially when the system is only displaying 25 results on the first click (as opposed to the previous 200 results). And because the results in the new display take up a lot more space on the screen, it takes a lot of scrolling just to view the first 25 results. This is even further limiting. With this new system, I fear in many cases people won't quickly find the best (most relevant) keywords, and will move on without even realizing it.

The one good thing I will say about the new keyword search display is that it now picks up newly created keywords within just a few minutes after the keywords are created. Previously, the search system would only pick up newly created keywords once per week, on Sundays. Now, they are picked up almost immediately. They appear as "0 titles" on the initial search results display, until the number of titles is updated on Sundays. But this is about the only good thing I can say about the new search. I still much prefer the old search, which displayed up to 200 results at a glance, gave the number of titles in the same row as the keyword, took up less space on the screen per keyword, was easier to read and use, and incorporated a "smarter" search engine.

Hello @keyword_expert, As Mr Col said, your idea on keyboard shortcuts is noted. Thank you very much for the feedback. IMDb is always and will be trying to improve. Have a nice day.

Could somebody please take this thread off of "Solved" status? I don't regard most of the issues discussed herein as solved.

@Col_Needham @Jon I discovered some more problems with the new keyword search engine, involving "exact matches" of the keywords searched for. I will illustrate these problems using the exact keyword search "brother relationship" as an example. Let's say I search for "brother relationship" because I am interested to see if that exact keyword exists, and also because I want to see if similar keywords exist. Here is that search, and below is a screenshot of the current top 11 results: https://www.imdb.com/find?s=kw&q=brother+relationship Note that the exact keyword I searched for, "brother relationship," does not appear until #10 in the results. And strangely, "brother brother brother relationship" appears as #1 in the results, despite its relatively low popularity compared to the very popular "brother brother relationship" (which appears as #2). Apparently the search engine assigns extra weight to the repeated prevalence of search words within the keywords themselves. This doesn't feel like the right way to power the search engine. Here is how I would fix this. If the keyword searched for has an exact match in the current keyword system (referred to as "exact matches" (plural) in the new keyword search engine), I would always list that exact match as the #1 spot in the "popular matches" results. For example, for my sample search "brother relationship" there is currently an exact match keyword for "brother-relationship" so I would list that exact keyword first in the "popular" results. As for spots #2, #3, etc., I would power the keyword search engine more like the old engine than the new engine. The old engine "smartly" assigned extra weight to the prevalence/popularity of similarly worded keywords, placing extremely popular keywords higher in the results, above extremely unpopular keywords that might begin with the same exact wording. In contrast, the new engine returns too many keywords that begin with the exact words searched for, without regard to popularity, thus returning too many keywords in the top 25 results that are currently only assigned to 1 title. And as previously discussed, the new engine for some reason gives extra weight to keywords that repeat the term searched for, in this case placing "brother-brother-brother-relationship" as #1 in the results. That makes no sense. The old engine also did a better job of flipping the order of the terms searched for, in order to provide more relevant and/or popular results higher in the list. For example, if you do a keyword search for "child murder" the new engine does not display what you are (likely) actually searching for: the very popular keyword "murder-of-a-child," until #26 in the results (which, of course, is not within the first 25 results, which also involves the other serious problem I have tried to bring to your attention -- that 25 results is too few). https://www.imdb.com/find?s=kw&q=child+murder&ref_=nv_sr_sm Search "child murder" Keywords child murders a child 91 titles child murderess 66 titles child murdered 23 titles murderous child 2 titles child murderer 168 titles attempted child murder 37 titles serial child murderer 9 titles atlanta child murders 5 titles father murders child 3 titles child murders nanny 1 title double child murder 38 titles triple child murder 14 titles mass child murder 5 titles serial child murder 23 titles implied child murder 3 titles child attempts murder 2 titles child attempting murder 1 title child murder investigation 50 titles child as murderer 5 titles mother murders child 4 titles child witnesses a murder 6 titles mother murders her child 4 titles soldier murders a child 2 titles child murders an adult 66 titles child murders a man 8 titles murder of a child 1430 titles Again, "murder of a child" is #26 in the results. Thus, if you search for "child murder," you will literally not even see "murder of a child" in the so-called "popular" results returned by IMDb. This is a problem. I have to wonder whether IMDb is powering its new search engine with the exact same engine when searching for "popular" keywords as when searching for "popular" titles and celebrities. It does seem that way to me. This would be a mistake, since there are important differences with keywords. For example, keywords are unique in that it is impossible to have exact duplicate keywords. There can be multiple movies named "Brother Relationship" and multiple people named "John Smith" but there can only be one keyword named "brother-relationship" and therefore only one exact match when you search for that keyword. The unique things about keywords really need to be factored in to the search engine. I wish there were a way to access the old keyword search engine and test it side by side with the new engine to provide even better examples of why the old engine was overall superior to the new engine. Hopefully the issues discussed in this thread will give you a sense of some of the many problems with the new engine, which does not appear to have been properly vetted.

Here is another example to illustrate one of the problems with the new search engine for keywords. When I do a keyword search for "killed," popular keywords like police officer killed, returning character killed off, actual animal killed, characters killed one by one, man killed, innocent person killed, shot and killed, etc. do not start to appear until result #411. That's because the new search engine first returns all keywords that literally begin with the word "killed," including hundreds of keywords currently only assigned to 1, 2, or 3 titles. And yet this new search engine purports to be a search for "popular matches." Obviously that is not true. I am pretty confident in saying that the old search engine would have done a better job of returning these actually popular keywords (bolded below) higher in the list of results. Search "killed" Keywords Exact matches killed 33 titles killed in action 158 titles killed with a gun 127 titles killed during sex 125 titles killed by police 124 titles killed in a car accident 106 titles killed in police car 86 titles killed with a hammer 82 titles killed with a sword 79 titles killed with an arrow 76 titles killed in an explosion 70 titles killed by a car 68 titles killed with an axe 66 titles killed in an elevator 60 titles killed in a car crash 59 titles killed by an animal 56 titles killed by a serial killer 53 titles killed by a dog 51 titles killed by a propeller 47 titles killed one by one 47 titles killed by gunshot 46 titles killed by knife 44 titles killed by a sniper 42 titles killed in car accident 40 titles killed with a shotgun 40 titles killed with a knife 34 titles killed by a train 30 titles killed with a bomb 30 titles killed in explosion 30 titles killed with a shovel 27 titles killed by car 26 titles killed by a shark 24 titles killed in a fire 23 titles killed by sunlight 23 titles killed by a policeman 22 titles killed by sword 21 titles killed by a vampire 21 titles killed with scissors 21 titles killed by an arrow 21 titles killed with a fork 20 titles killed by cop 20 titles killed by monster 20 titles killed by broken neck 20 titles killed with a spear 19 titles killed by ghost 19 titles killed in bed 19 titles killed in a car 19 titles killed by a monster 18 titles killed in shower 17 titles killed on birthday 17 titles killed falling down stairs 17 titles killed with a car 16 titles killed in line of duty 16 titles killed by a werewolf 16 titles killed by strangulation 16 titles killed by evil dead 16 titles killed with a machete 16 titles killed in battle 16 titles killed with a baseball bat 16 titles killed in an accident 15 titles killed by a snake 15 titles killed by lightning 14 titles killed by a truck 14 titles killed in prison 13 titles killed off camera 13 titles killed with a drill 13 titles killed by friendly fire 13 titles killed in war 13 titles killed in an air raid 13 titles killed with a harpoon 13 titles killed with a chainsaw 12 titles killed with a lawnmower 12 titles killed while sitting in a police van 12 titles killed in a shower 11 titles killed with a meat cleaver 11 titles killed with a hatchet 11 titles killed by a horse 11 titles killed with acid 10 titles killed in car explosion 10 titles killed by a spear 9 titles killed in a plane crash 9 titles killed by woman 8 titles killed by brother 8 titles killed by friend 8 titles killed with machete 8 titles killed in police protection 8 titles killed with a golf club 8 titles killed with a rock 8 titles killed by a ghost 8 titles killed by a demon 8 titles killed with a pitchfork 8 titles killed in vietnam 7 titles killed in chair 7 titles killed in sleep 7 titles killed with a trophy 7 titles killed by a bear 7 titles killed by a tiger 7 titles killed by landmine 7 titles killed by a zombie 7 titles killed with a screwdriver 7 titles killed just before retirement 7 titles killed by a woman 6 titles killed on the day before one's retirement 6 titles killed by rats 6 titles killed in a duel 6 titles killed by hammer 6 titles killed by an alligator 6 titles killed by machete 6 titles killed by crossbow 6 titles killed by radiation 6 titles killed by a robot 6 titles killed by an axe 6 titles killed in a dream 6 titles killed with silver 6 titles killed by a falling chandelier 6 titles killed by lion 6 titles killed by the police 6 titles killed with a claw hammer 6 titles killed by falling debris 6 titles killed chicken 5 titles killed with arrow 5 titles killed by a scorpion 5 titles killed by an angry mob 5 titles killed by insect 5 titles killed by a computer 5 titles killed by aliens 5 titles killed by a ricochet 5 titles killed with a nail gun 5 titles killed by an elephant 5 titles killed by mistake 5 titles killed with a mallet 5 titles killed with a pickaxe 5 titles killed with a tomahawk 5 titles killed by female police officer 5 titles killed with a razor 4 titles killed by a falling tree 4 titles killed with sword 4 titles killed in truck accident 4 titles killed by a hit on the head 4 titles killed by hit on head with statue 4 titles killed by a tractor 4 titles killed by broken glass 4 titles killed on duty 4 titles killed with a poker 4 titles killed by prison guard 4 titles killed with a power drill 4 titles killed by bees 4 titles killed by a throwing knife 4 titles killed by a wolf 4 titles killed in the ring 4 titles killed by a hand grenade 4 titles killed in an ambush 4 titles killed in a train accident 4 titles killed with a crowbar 4 titles killed by male police officer 4 titles killed father 3 titles killed by father 3 titles killed in car 3 titles killed in a basement 3 titles killed with high heeled shoe 3 titles killed in an avalanche 3 titles killed in a chipper 3 titles killed sitting on toilet 3 titles killed while boxing 3 titles killed by train 3 titles killed by falling off a horse 3 titles killed by partner in crime 3 titles killed by security system 3 titles killed by bear trap 3 titles killed with a hook 3 titles killed in fight 3 titles killed with a ball peen hammer 3 titles killed by love interest 3 titles killed by accident 3 titles killed in the woods 3 titles killed with a toilet 3 titles killed during lesbian sex 3 titles killed by a falling statue 3 titles killed by snakes 3 titles killed within own house 3 titles killed due to misunderstanding 3 titles killed in a video game 3 titles killed in a car crusher 3 titles killed with pin 3 titles killed by a family member 3 titles killed in a house fire 3 titles killed in a mugging 3 titles killed with a single punch 3 titles killed with one's own gun 3 titles killed while trying to escape 3 titles killed with a cue ball 2 titles killed with a power saw 2 titles killed with a carrot 2 titles killed with an iron 2 titles killed with razor 2 titles killed in a bathtub 2 titles killed with a statuette 2 titles killed with a propeller 2 titles killed by plane 2 titles killed in theater 2 titles killed by machine 2 titles killed in police helicopter 2 titles killed over and over 2 titles killed with own sword 2 titles killed by alligator 2 titles killed with a bottle 2 titles killed by child 2 titles killed with candelabra 2 titles killed by a crewmate 2 titles killed with a scalpel 2 titles killed in freak accident 2 titles killed by spikes 2 titles killed in a blender 2 titles killed by stray bullet 2 titles killed with a letter opener 2 titles killed trying to surrender 2 titles killed with a shield 2 titles killed by a falling piano 2 titles killed in swimming pool 2 titles killed by dog 2 titles killed by a dragon 2 titles killed in a restroom stall 2 titles killed with throwing dart 2 titles killed with a meat hammer 2 titles killed by implosion 2 titles killed by bats 2 titles killed repeatedly 2 titles killed by a spider 2 titles killed with a syringe 2 titles killed within own residence 2 titles killed by a deer 2 titles killed by fear 2 titles killed by water 2 titles killed by a bull 2 titles killed with a rifle 2 titles killed by a monkey 2 titles killed with a motorboat 2 titles killed by lava 2 titles killed by indians 2 titles killed in the holocaust 2 titles killed with a spiked baseball bat 2 titles killed on live tv 2 titles killed by a falling air conditioner 2 titles killed in police custody 2 titles killed by a dinosaur 2 titles killed in a train crash 2 titles killed while sleeping 2 titles killed with fork 1 title killed with a spoon 1 title killed with a basketball 1 title killed with a toilet bowl 1 title killed in korean war 1 title killed by fire engine 1 title killed by a tram 1 title killed while bound to bed 1 title killed with hairpin 1 title killed with ice pick 1 title killed when the lights go out 1 title killed escaping from prison 1 title killed with hands 1 title killed with champagne bottle 1 title killed in a nightclub 1 title killed by a snow plow 1 title killed my dad 1 title killed with a stray bullet 1 title killed with a gaff hook 1 title killed by a boomerang 1 title killed with an award 1 title killed by a wasp swarm 1 title killed by a tree 1 title killed mid sentence 1 title killed with a violin string 1 title killed by a crewman 1 title killed by space decompression 1 title killed while talking 1 title killed by a cat 1 title killed by android double 1 title killed in a shuttle crash 1 title killed while urinating 1 title killed by a tornado 1 title killed with a scythe 1 title killed by an accomplice 1 title killed with a television set 1 title killed ranchhand 1 title killed telepathically 1 title killed with a spell 1 title killed with a dildo 1 title killed by the wind 1 title killed in a blast 1 title killed by a falling elevator 1 title killed by a hose 1 title killed in a helicopter crash 1 title killed by a hippo 1 title killed by a hydraulic press 1 title killed in a hydraulic press 1 title killed on the job 1 title killedd in custody 1 title killed by boss 1 title killed with a hunting trophy 1 title killed by cheese 1 title killed by a bat 1 title killed by bad drug 1 title killed with flamethrower 1 title killed in hunting accident 1 title killed by a puppet 1 title killed with own sward 1 title killed by gun recoil 1 title killed by mallet 1 title killed by running into a tree 1 title killed in a trapeze accident 1 title killed after mating 1 title killed from the inside out 1 title killed by a meteorite 1 title killed by a t rex 1 title killed with a dart gun 1 title killed by robber 1 title killed with paint 1 title killed by a mugger 1 title killed with large breasts 1 title killed with a dagger 1 title killed by a turtle 1 title killed with a pan 1 title killed by own's own creation 1 title killed by an escalator 1 title killed while defecating 1 title killed while kissing 1 title killed while lesbian kissing 1 title killed with a psychic blast 1 title killed in a mine field 1 title killed with a paw 1 title killed by light 1 title killed by a crab 1 title killed by one's beauty 1 title killed by one's reflection 1 title killed by assault rifle 1 title killed by deep water pressure 1 title killed by spur 1 title killed in a bar 1 title killed by horse tranquilizer 1 title killed by tranquilizer 1 title killed in a race car crash 1 title killed in nuclear explosion 1 title killed in a carriage crash 1 title killed by a ceiling fan 1 title killed by a panther 1 title killed by a rat 1 title killed by a goat 1 title killed twice 1 title killed with kindness 1 title killed in an ice crusher 1 title killed enemies 1 title killed in an eletrical acident 1 title killed in a plane accident 1 title killed with a spray paint can 1 title killed by rapid aging 1 title killed without a trace 1 title killed by a chimpanzee 1 title killed with a book 1 title killed by a volcanic eruption 1 title killed at the church 1 title killed and revived 1 title killed by toy 1 title killed with an oar in mouth 1 title killed with a bust 1 title killed while saving others 1 title killed by an automatic door 1 title killed by punch 1 title killed by a ceiling collapse 1 title killed with an auger bit dirll 1 title killed in trap 1 title killed with a jawbone 1 title killed after being released from prison 1 title killed for breaking the rules 1 title killed in an earthquake 1 title killed by a gorilla 1 title killed by an animal trap 1 title killed with a tire iron 1 title killed by sex 1 title killed with a circulating fan 1 title killed by smog 1 title killed by living tree 1 title killed with a car jack 1 title killed by magical artifact 1 title killed by wrench 1 title killed with a hat pin 1 title killed in a graveyard 1 title killed in a hotel room 1 title killed with a steak knife 1 title killed by a bus 1 title killed with a baseball 1 title killed in a trash compactor 1 title killed by a pimp 1 title killed by a falling cactus 1 title killed in public 1 title killed by security guard 1 title killed by one's own invention 1 title killed with a hoe blade 1 title killed sportsman 1 title killed while driving 1 title killed by a rhinoceros 1 title killed by a kiss 1 title killed while receiving a blowjob 1 title killed by drowning 1 title killed with a telephone 1 title killed in a bicycle accident 1 title killed in an exorcism 1 title killed technician 1 title killed by bus 1 title killed by exploding grill 1 title killed with garden shears 1 title killed by own booby trap 1 title police officer killed 1201 titles returning character killed off 1091 titles actual animal killed 428 titles characters killed one by one 293 titles man killed 225 titles innocent person killed 152 titles female police officer killed 144 titles woman killed 139 titles shot and killed 107 titles child killed 95 titles security guard killed 77 titles animal killed 61 titles soldier killed 56 titles asking to be killed 53 titles

Here is another example search to illustrate one of the problems with the new keyword search. When I search for "brother sister relationship" that exact match is listed #2 in the list, after a much less popular keyword. If there is an exact match for any keyword, that exact match should always be given the #1 spot in the results. But this concept is limited to exact matches (of which there will always be only 1 or 0 for any given keyword search, since every keyword is unique). Search "brother sister relationship" Keywords brother brother sister relationship 3 titles brother sister relationship 8486 titles

As further proof that there is something really "off" about the new keyword search engine, here is another example. When you search for "one day time span" (with a space in "time span") the very popular and nearly identical result "one day timespan" is literally the last keyword listed in the search results. And because the new display takes up two rows per entry instead of one row, when viewing on most computer screens, that last search result won't even be visible unless you scroll down. Search "one day time span" Keywords Exact matches two day time span 5 titles four day time span 2 titles three day time span 5 titles five day time span 1 title one month time span 6 titles one week time span 18 titles one year time span 9 titles one thousand year time span 2 titles reference to one day at a time tv show 1 title one day timespan 900 titles

Here is another weird situation illustrating the shortfalls of the new keyword search algorithm. Why is the exact item searched for not listed until the fifth result? Search "reference to laura palmer" Keywords Exact matches reference to laura ingraham 40 titles reference to laura dern 15 titles reference to laura loomer 27 titles reference to laura ingalls wilder 11 titles reference to laura palmer 5 titles

The following is a bookmarklet (or script code prefixed with a out-syntax scheme identifier) which, when used on an IMDb keyword search results page, will convert the format to the way effectively it used to be. ( function(p,m,e,i,n,t) { for(n=e.length,i=0;i<n;i++) { e[i].style.display="inline"; t=e[i][m]("a"), t[p]=t[p].replace(/ /g,"-"); if(t=e[i][m]("ul li label")) e[i][m]("ul").outerHTML=" ("+t[p]+")" } })("innerHTML","querySelector",document.querySelectorAll(".ipc-metadata-list-summary-item__tc")) If you know what a bookmarklet is, then you already know what to do, otherwise to "install" the tool, you would highlight the aforementioned source code (a JavaScript URI), copy it (to the clipboard) and paste it into URL field of a browser bookmark, whether already existing or newly created. To use a bookmarklet, you "visit" it while having the particular webpage (in all of the Web) as the active tab in your browser. You don't need to understand JavaScript or any scripting language to use a bookmarklet. The properly-encoded URI for that same source code is (function(p,m,e,i,n,t){for(n=e.length,i=0;i<n;i++){e[i].style.display="inline";t=e[i][m]("a"),t[p]=t[p].replace(/%20/g,"-");if(t=e[i][m]("ul%20li%20label"))e[i][m]("ul").outerHTML="%20("+t[p]+")"}})("innerHTML","querySelector",document.querySelectorAll(".ipc-metadata-list-summary-item__tc")); by the way. I previously presented this with line breaks and indentation to make it easier to read and thereby easier to understand, which in turn helps a semi-experienced individual screen it for malicious script behavior and errors in the flow of control that could unintentionally cause problems with resource allocation on any computer on which it is executed, meaning that trusting me would not be requisite for understanding that the script is safe. I don't have a script for generating a longer or comprehensive listing of keywords in a search results page, as of this time.

Alas, it would appear that the forum software is automatically filtering out any instance of a colon immediately preceded by the word "javascript", which is how the text of all bookmarklets begin: This didn't used to happen on here (e.g. https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/reviews-interface-improvement-idea/5f4a79e78815453dba8f4034?commentId=5f4a7b6f8815453dbad85109). Apparently somebody on board software management team believes that censorship upon this kind of stuff improves security or prevents code injection. Ridiculous!

@jeorj_euler​ I just successfully installed your bookmarklet. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!! You don't even know how much it means to me to get the old format back for keyword searches (results displayed one per line, with the number of titles in parentheses). This will solve a major problem that I was having in trying to figure out how to present my duplicate keyword lists in the future. Now I can keep presenting them in the same way as I always have -- a tried and true proven format -- with minimal extra effort. You have given me (and the entire IMDb community) an important gift this Christmas season. Thank you!!!

@jeorj_euler​ p.s. And you even added the hyphens back into the keywords as displayed. Awesome! I appreciate your attention to detail.

I hadn't been paying close attention all along (for the past year or so). When I realized the gravity of the situation, I had to share a workaround. You, keyword expert, seem the be the only person around here who is really trying to promote quality control in the keywords assignments system.

Another example: the exact keyword searched for, "reference-to-christ," does not appear in the results until result #48. Search "reference to christ" Keywords Exact matches reference-to-jesus-christ (4200 titles) reference-to-christmas (177 titles) reference-to-agatha-christie (131 titles) reference-to-christopher-columbus (231 titles) reference-to-a-christmas-carol (105 titles) reference-to-a-christmas-story (129 titles) reference-to-christianity (15 titles) reference-to-christopher-marlowe (16 titles) reference-to-christina-aguilera (55 titles) reference-to-st.-christopher (12 titles) reference-to-christian-slater (25 titles) reference-to-saint-christopher (17 titles) reference-to-christopher-wray (18 titles) reference-to-christie-brinkley (11 titles) reference-to-father-christmas (25 titles) reference-to-christopher-nolan (46 titles) reference-to-christopher-steele (77 titles) reference-to-christian-mythology (35 titles) reference-to-black-christmas (23 titles) reference-to-christy-turlington (11 titles) reference-to-christopher-hitchens (23 titles) reference-to-christopher-lee (43 titles) reference-to-julie-christie (20 titles) reference-to-christopher-reeve (27 titles) reference-to-christian-dior (35 titles) reference-to-julie-christie (20 titles) reference-to-christopher-reeve (27 titles) reference-to-christopher-walken (58 titles) reference-to-christopher-lloyd (24 titles) reference-to-christian-bale (44 titles) reference-to-hayden-christensen (11 titles) reference-to-chris-christie (32 titles) reference-to-christopher-plummer (20 titles) reference-to-santa-christ (24 titles) reference-to-hans-christian-andersen (35 titles) reference-to-christina-hoff-sommers (11 titles) reference-to-christine-blasey-ford (54 titles) reference-to-jesus-christ-superstar (26 titles) reference-to-national-lampoon's-christmas-vacation (20 titles) reference-to-how-the-grinch-stole-christmas (12 titles) reference-to-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-christ (12 titles) reference-to-christo (1 title) reference-to-christies (1 title) reference-to-christabelle (1 title) reference-to-christabella (1 title) reference-to-christine (1 title) reference-to-christians (3 titles) reference-to-christ (6 titles) reference-to-chris-tucker (22 titles) reference-to-christopher-wren (8 titles)

The following is a bookmarklet (or script code prefixed with a out-syntax scheme identifier) which, when used on an IMDb keyword search results page, will convert the format to the way effectively it used to be. javascript:( function(p,m,e,i,n,t) { for(n=e.length,i=0;i<n;i++) { e[i].style.display="inline"; t=e[i][m]("a"), t[p]=t[p].replace(/ /g,"-"); if(t=e[i][m]("ul li label")) e[i][m]("ul").outerHTML=" ("+t[p]+")" } })("innerHTML","querySelector",document.querySelectorAll(".ipc-metadata-list-summary-item__tc")) If you know what a bookmarklet is, then you already know what to do, otherwise to "install" the tool, you would highlight the aforementioned source code (a JavaScript URI), copy it (to the clipboard) and paste it into URL field of a browser bookmark, whether already existing or newly created. To use a bookmarklet, you "visit" it while having the particular webpage (in all of the Web) as the active tab in your browser. You don't need to understand JavaScript or any scripting language to use a bookmarklet. The properly-encoded URI for that same source code is javascript:(function(p,m,e,i,n,t){for(n=e.length,i=0;i<n;i++){e[i].style.display="inline";t=e[i][m]("a"),t[p]=t[p].replace(/%20/g,"-");if(t=e[i][m]("ul%20li%20label"))e[i][m]("ul").outerHTML="%20("+t[p]+")"}})("innerHTML","querySelector",document.querySelectorAll(".ipc-metadata-list-summary-item__tc")); by the way. I previously presented this with line breaks and indentation to make it easier to read and thereby easier to understand, which in turn helps a semi-experienced individual screen it for malicious script behavior and errors in the flow of control that could unintentionally cause problems with resource allocation on any computer on which it is executed, meaning that trusting me would not be requisite for understanding that the script is safe. I don't have a script for generating a longer or comprehensive listing of keywords in a search results page, as of this time.

I just edited and deleted Sprinklr comment 63a8ffb88a78b24108718f80, so Sprinklr reply 63ae62c548a8017448664f11 by keyword_expert has become invisible to everybody, even though a record of it has been kept and still shows up in my notifications. I'm noticing some glitches in the way that the forum software filters the contents of posts. For instance, whenever the words "top", "bottom", "left", "right", or "display" are followed by a colon and a quotation mark, the filtering system will remove the whole word, the colon and that quotation mark, along with any white space characters between the word and symbols. The aforementioned words are Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) description properties, and may appear in HTML "style" tags or in the HTML "style" attributes of respective HTML element tags.

As a note to all, whenever deleting a post on this forum, try to remember to edit it first in such a way as to replace it with only five random non-space characters or a message of your choice that meets the minimum character limit. I don't know if this applies to everybody on here, but whenever I create a post that consists only of five fullstop marks (or low dots), it is automatically flagged as private pending the approval of the board administrator. I suspect this may also occur if the posts consists only of five question marks, five exclamation marks, five colons, five semicolons or five of any other symbol that might constitute gibberish when presented in such a way.

Quoting a hidden post: @jeorj_euler Shouldn't you also tell people to add j@v@script: at the beginning (spelling it out with the alphabet)? I suppose my quick answer to that is to explain that I shall wait to see if one my more recent specialized rephrasing of the earlier source code post is approved for publication. I may have to subject the forurm software to a battery of tests, in the mean time.

@jeorj_euler​ Thank you again for creating the bookmarklet. I am already putting it to good use.

I see that Sprinklr comment 63ae636048a8017448664f19 was approved for publication, so I may want to delete the earlier one in which the protocol part of the uniform resource identifier is missing due to the automated filter.

Some new changes have been made very recently to the keyword search engine that now place popular similar keywords at the top of the list. For example, in my post of 21 days ago, I reported that the search for the word "killed" did not return "police-officer-killed" and similar keywords until result #411. Today when I do the same search, "police-officer-killed" is literally at the top of the list, ranked at #1. Search "killed" Keywords Exact matches police-officer-killed(1200 titles) returning-character-killed-off(1091 titles) killed-in-action(160 titles) killed-during-sex(127 titles) killed-with-a-gun(132 titles) killed-in-a-car-accident(105 titles) killed-by-police(126 titles) killed(35 titles) killed-with-a-fork(19 titles) killed-by-a-train(31 titles) killed-by-a-propeller(47 titles) killed-with-a-hammer(81 titles) killed-in-a-shower(11 titles) killed-by-a-dog(51 titles) killed-with-a-sword(80 titles) killed-with-an-arrow(76 titles) killed-in-shower(17 titles) killed-with-a-chainsaw(12 titles) killed-on-birthday(17 titles) killed-by-car(25 titles) killed-by-gunshot(46 titles) killed-with-a-meat-cleaver(11 titles) killed-with-a-car(16 titles) killed-by-lightning(14 titles) killed-by-a-policeman(23 titles) Another change I have noticed is that when you click the "exact matches" button on keyword searches, it will now sometimes return multiple results (not just one result), because it now searches for exact matches without regard to spaces and punctuation. For example, a search for "videoconferencing" returns both video conferencing and videoconferencing as exact matches. A search for "voicemail" returns both voice mail and voicemail as exact matches. A search for "esp" returns both esp and e.s.p. as exact matches. All of these are good improvements. However, back to the first change (placing similar popular keywords at the very top of the list), I actually think this change has gone too far in that direction. I would still recommend always placing exact matches at the very top of the search results list regardless of popularity (especially since we are only talking about one or two search results). And I would still recommend placing keywords that are extremely close in wording (without regard to popularity) to be placed next, after the exact matches. Then the popular similar results should be mixed in with the results that begin with the same words. An appropriate balance should be struck. The new engine is closer to finding that balance, but it hasn't quite been found yet. To illustrate my point, consider the following search. Currently, when I search for "trapped in a moving car," the keyword trapped-in-a-driverless-moving-car does not appear until result #35 (and because the results still only display 25 initial results as default, this keyword is not even visible at first). "trapped in a driverless moving car" is so close to "trapped in a moving car" that I would expect it to be higher in the search results. (And I also still think that initial results should include 50 keywords rather than 25 keywords). Search "trapped in a moving car" Keywords sex-in-a-car(1437 titles) singing-in-a-car(970 titles) trapped-in-a-car(59 titles) hiding-in-a-car(116 titles) sleeping-in-a-car(406 titles) trapped-in-a-mine(23 titles) trapped-in-a-building(52 titles) trapped-in-a-cage(11 titles) trapped-in-a-net(24 titles) trapped-in-a-house(57 titles) trapped-in-a-freezer(19 titles) trapped-in-a-basement(30 titles) trapped-in-a-room(57 titles) trapped-in-a-game(18 titles) trapped-in-a-hole(12 titles) trapped-in-a-tunnel(12 titles) trapped-in-a-mirror(38 titles) trapped-in-a-coffin(39 titles) trapped-in-a-cave(31 titles) trapped-in-a-nightmare(18 titles) trapped-in-a-burning-car(12 titles) fighting-in-a-moving-car(16 titles) person-in-a-car-trunk(344 titles) dead-body-in-a-car(115 titles) following-someone-in-a-car(122 titles) oral-sex-in-a-car(334 titles) trapped-in-a-burning-building(36 titles) trapped-in-a-time-loop(66 titles) listening-to-music-in-a-car(123 titles) dead-body-in-a-car-trunk(336 titles) man-carries-a-woman-in-his-arms(254 titles) ejected-from-a-moving-car(12 titles) jumping-from-a-moving-car(15 titles) jumping-out-of-a-moving-car(84 titles) trapped-in-a-driverless-moving-car(2 titles) eating-in-a-car(51 titles) killed-in-a-car(19 titles) locked-in-a-car(56 titles) whistling-in-a-car(11 titles) vomiting-in-a-car(34 titles) dancing-in-a-car(15 titles) car-in-a-lake(18 titles) wrapped-in-a-carpet(13 titles) murdered-in-a-car(36 titles) kissing-in-a-car(55 titles) rapping-in-a-car(37 titles) drinking-in-a-car(25 titles) living-in-a-caravan(23 titles) fight-in-a-car(28 titles) living-in-a-car(58 titles) Anyway, thank you for the ongoing improvements to the keywords search engine. It is not quite back to where it used to be, but progress is being made.

Thanks

Also when doing a name search for a fairly common name like Mike Murphy for example the first 5 show up Then you have to click Exact match. 25 names come up. If the Mike Murphy you are looking for isn't among these you can click More Exact names. The problem tends to be if you click on any of these names and then click back space you go to the first list of 25 and you have to click More Exact names to get back to where you were.

@Col_Needham @Jeff_IMDb Whatever fixes you made for title searches in the new search format may also need to be made for keyword searches. As I have reported here, the new keyword search is not nearly as "smart" as the old search in finding the best and most prevalent results. Using "2000" as an example (as inspired by the 2000 Mules example for title searches), when you do a keyword search for "2000," the keyword "year-2000" does not even appear in the first 25 results, so it literally does not show up in the search at first. In the new search, when searching for "2000," the keywords timeframe 2000s and year 2000 are results #27 and #28, respectively, so they don't show up in the initial results (of only 25 keywords). The fact that the initial display is limited to a paltry 25 results is a related problem, and a big problem at that. But an even bigger problem is that the new search is a "dumb" search (as compared to a "smart" search) in that it limits the top results to a very rigid interpretation of the keywords that start with the exact words searched for, exactly how they are spelled and in the exact order they are searched for. I no longer have access to the old search, but I feel pretty confident in saying that with the old search, searching for "2000" would have presented timeframe 2000s and year 2000 very close to the top, because the old search factored in prevalence of keywords into the search algorithm, and also would not limit the top results to only keywords that begin with the exact term searched for. And even if I'm wrong about that, the old keyword search displayed up to 200 results at a single click, so even if timeframe 2000s and year 2000 were ranked #27 and #28 in the old search (which, again, I am confident was not true), those keywords would still show up on the first (and only) screen that popped up with a single click, so they would have been much easier to find. I wish it were possible to access the old search to compare and contrast search results to further prove what I am talking about here. Overall, the new keyword search is a major step backwards, not only in display and formatting but more importantly, in functionality. It feels kind of astonishing that it was just unveiled on everybody without proper vetting.

As a contributor, this is so much more useful than that. Why would you want to make life harder for your contributors?

@Vande​ I agree with you. It's not only the absence of the Roman numerals that makes the new version obviously harder to use, it's a bunch of other stuff too: The new format breaks the info from one line into two, taking up more space and making it hard to compare entries. The new format eliminates the background shading in the rows, making it hard to see the gradations at a glance. The new format uses a hard-to-read gray font for the critical info. With the new version, when you try to copy and paste specific entries and approach the link from the right side of the screen while copying, the link automatically opens, even when you don't want that. That didn't happen with the old version. And those are just a few examples off the top of my head.

@phillip​ I agree, I've had the same troubles with the search features. It should FIRST give you the results of what you typed, only those words and in the order given, THEN the closest to them and so on. The results I often get are whacky and unrelated other than maybe 1 word, not good!

@rhgrafix​ It should FIRST give you the results of what you typed, only those words and in the order given, THEN the closest to them and so on. With keywords it has become the opposite problem, as I discuss earlier in this thread with the "2000" example. The keyword search experience used to be great, but now it is pretty bad, borderline terrible.

Just to clarify my most recent comment, I do think that for keywords, exact matches (if there are any) should always be listed as #1 in the "popular" results. That is because with keywords, there will always be (at most) only one exact match [edit: it turns out there can be up to two "exact matches"]. However, for spots #2, #3, etc. in the results, those should be a balance of popular similar keywords (weighted more heavily) versus keywords with similar wording. I elaborate more on these concepts here.

@ben_hampel​ how do you manage to upload pictures in such a way that they show on a person's page if you are not representing them?

He is an image partner, Vande.

@jeorj_euler​ I've never heard of that before. I just know that I often tag images on IMDb, and they sometimes then appear on the person's page, occasionally even as their main headshot. I always assumed this depended on the connections of the person who originally uploaded them.

@Vande​ To be honest, I have no idea. I've been doing this for years and when I started I worked at a photo agency. Maybe something got grandfathered in.

The only other IMDb image partner of whom I'm aware is Trisha S, an employee of IMDb, who hasn't posted on this forum in over two years. I'm not sure about about Will (swiftw), as he seemed to have some abilities. (By the way, has anybody else noticed the he has gone from being listed as an Employee to listed as a Champion? Interesting.) Since the IMDb company has various incentives to promote IMDbPro, the IMDb staff don't really provide much (if any) insight into legacy image upload programs (like Publicity Photos) offered by IMDb. Apparently, the images that were present on IMDb title pages before a tool for uploading images to title pages was made available to IMDb members with default set of privileges will automatically show up in IMDb name page image galleries whenever somebody corresponding to those name pages is tagged in them. There is also the matter of IMDb Title Scorecard images having the same effect. We have an existing thread in which these phenomena are discussed, at Sprinklr thread 5f4a7a448815453dba9fe35a. We should move any further discussion, questions, anecdotes or conjectures on the matter to that thread, so that we don't clutter up this this thread dealing with another topic entirely.

@jeorj_euler​ Does it say somewhere that I'm an 'image partner'?

No, Ben Hampel. This is something that can be inferred from the fact that the IMDb image partner program even exists.