Skip to main content
bderoes's profile
bderoes
50k Badge
100k Badge
Champion

Champion

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

117.9K Points

Sunday, December 11th, 2022 7:05 AM

Closed

Answered

Issues with the updated /find search results display

I'm seeing a different format and content for search results when using the search feature at the top of every IMDb page (desktop format).

Is it true that the option for Exact Title Matches does not appear unless an exact match is available?

I like the other search options being present on the right panel.

Did I miss a Sprinklr announcement for this? I can't seem to find one.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New search results page?

Question

 • 

Updated 

2 years ago

562

10

This post was created from this comment on different post
keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

2 years ago

As of a few minutes ago, the IMDb keyword search results changed significantly when I view in my browser. 

I will discuss the new display in this post, and will also ask three questions (in bold-face font below).

Below are a couple screenshots of what the search results look like now.

https://www.imdb.com/find?s=kw&q=argue+couple&ref_=nv_sr_sm

The search results are presented in a more "modern" format on a white background, with larger, bolded text for the keywords.

One big change is that the number of titles for each keyword is now presented on a separate row from the keyword itself. This will hurt my ability to post lists of duplicate keywords for mass mergers. Previously, I could easily copy and paste keywords to assemble lists like this:

arguing-couple (15 titles)  -->  couple's-argument (2 titles)  -->  argument-between-couple (75 titles)  -->   couple-argues (27 titles)

knife-held-to-someone's-throat (40 titles)  -->  knife-held-to-one's-throat (20 titles)  -->  holding-a-knife-at-someone's-throat (22 titles)  -->  holding-a-knife-to-someone's-throat (11 titles)  -->  hold-a-knife-to-someone's-throat (3 titles)  -->   knife-held-to-throat (444 titles) 

Using the new display, such a list would look something like this (matching the keywords in my first example shown above):

arguing couple

  • 15 titles

couple's argument

  • 2 titles

argument between couple

  • 77 titles

couple argues

  • 30 titles

I could manually edit such a list to present it in the old format, but that would take a lot of work. Which brings me to my first two questions.

1. Is it possible to opt out of the new display format for search results?

2. If not, could the new display show the number of titles in parentheses in the same row as each keyword, like it was before?

One other major change: for keyword searches on popular words, the old display would include up to 200 results. The new display only includes 25 results at a time, and you have to keep clicking "More popular matches" to show more. Here is an example link to show what I mean. Having to click that button 7 times to get the same 200 results as before is less than ideal. On the more positive side, if you click the button enough, you can display way more than 200 results. I tested it using this link and got up to 1,200 results, which is likely the limit. But that required clicking the "More" button 47 times. Which brings me to my third and final question.

3. Can the new display be modified to show up to 100 keyword results as the default (instead of 25 results)?

Displaying up to 100 results would really help with the usability/functionality of the new system. I would even settle for 50 results, but I would prefer 100 results. 25 results is way too small as a default, and will require a lot of button clicking just to get a good understanding of what is going on with popular words within keywords. 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Keyword Searches: IMDb has changed its display format for search results

39

Col_Needham

Employee

 • 

7.1K Messages

 • 

176.6K Points

@keyword_expert  Thanks for the feedback.  To answer your questions:

1. No sorry, the new experience is gradually being rolled out to increasingly larger numbers of customers.  Once it reaches 100% the old search software will be retired. 

2. No sorry, this is the new display format.  Since your keyword merge requests are manually reported and manually processed anyway, just do not worry about how they look.

We will report the result sizes issue to the appropriate team.   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.

3. See above :-)

Hope this helps.  

2 years ago

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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.

2 years ago

Col_Needham

Employee

 • 

7.1K Messages

 • 

176.6K Points

@keyword_expert​  As mentioned above,  we will look at the options for more results to be displayed when “more” is pressed, but there are good reasons for keeping the initial result set smaller.  Your idea on keyboard shortcuts is noted too, thanks. 

2 years ago

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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). 

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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). 

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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.

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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. 

2 years ago

Jon

Employee

 • 

1.1K Messages

 • 

10.7K Points

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.

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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

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.

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

Edward

Employee

 • 

729 Messages

 • 

8K Points

@keyword_expert​ 

We appreciate you taking the time to share your feedback. We are always working on ways to improve IMDb and I was sure to share this feedback with the team.

IMDb.com is constantly being updated and improved, and we welcome all comments and suggestions aimed at improving its features, flexibility and ease of use.

Thanks

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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!!!

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

0

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@jeorj_euler​ 

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

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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

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

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.

2 years ago

Kevin_Powell

Employee

 • 

27 Messages

 • 

314 Points

@keyword_expert​ -- appreciate all your keyword search-related feature feedback. The team is prioritizing keyword search updates and experiments, and I have shared your additional feature and design feedback for consideration. Thanks, and please reach out at any time.

2 years ago

gromit82

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

274.2K Points

2 years ago

With the new display changes, I've noticed that in name searches, the roman numeral after a person's name no longer appears.

I suppose that the staff assumes that identifying a person by one of their jobs and credits is sufficient, although I personally think that including a roman numeral would be helpful too.

But what about the situation illustrated below (with arrows added by me)? 

What are we supposed to do to distinguish one "Jim Smith" from another when there are several of them with no credit listed below their names? I think that these names really require a roman numeral ... and if you are going to display the roman numerals for the people without credits listed, it would be reasonable to display the roman numerals for people with credits listed, too.
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Display roman numerals in name search

2

Col_Needham

Employee

 • 

7.1K Messages

 • 

176.6K Points

Thanks @gromit82 ... we have moved this from an idea over to a problem as this is surfacing issues in the data and in the display vs. the solution being a potential future enhancement for consideration. 

We would rather fix the root causes of the problems this exposes here, which include:

1.  Some names lack "known for" data despite actually having one or more credits due to some old IMDb rules which ought to be reviewed, for example, people only with "thanks" credits do not get a "known for" set by IMDb.  For example, one of the Jim Smith's in your example results is https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5547123/ who does have a credit which would be a better disambiguation than the "(LVIIII)" numerals attached to his name. 

2. Some names are now "empty" and have no data associated so should be deleted rather than returned in a search results set. For example https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10391135/ 

2 years ago

ben_hampel

481 Messages

 • 

8.5K Points

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. 

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

2 years ago

I'm not aware of any official announcement, although @Col_Needham discussed it in response to my post here:

Keyword Searches: IMDb has changed its display format for search results

Overall, two thumbs down from me on the new search system specifically for keywords. I have been discussing the problems in those other threads.

As for basic "All" searches, I agree with you that the new options on the right side are good.

However, those options on the right side seem to have taken the place of additional options that used to be at the bottom of the screen with the old "All" search, and that would actually show some sample search results at the bottom of the screen. This was particularly useful for picking up one or two keyword results in an "All" search. That functionality has now been taken away.

p.s. There was also this comment from @Col_Needham today. 

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

2 years ago

@bderoes​ 

p.s. There was also this comment from @Col_Needham today. 

0

Vande

225 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

2 years ago

This new search format is back again today.  How irritating, I thought they'd abandoned the idea!

‎How do I get the old name list? | IMDb Community Forums (sprinklr.com)

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled This new name search format is back again
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Issues with the updated /find search results display

3

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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.

2 years ago

Vande

225 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

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

2 years ago

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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.

2 years ago

lapind1

3 Messages

 • 

100 Points

2 years ago

Please bring back the old search in https://www.imdb.com/find
Results are no more in blue (not visited) and violet (already clicked) color, so I have to check thousands of movies running on TV once more over again and again, which I have already seen in last 20 years or only checked and they had too bad rating.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Search results display
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Issues with the updated /find search results display

0

phillip

123 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

2 years ago

The search algorithm is also just terrible. It needs to be geared towards what I actually type.

A few examples. I just tried to look up King of the Texas Rangers which was an old serial.

1st result....King of the Hill 
2nd result...Lord of the Rings: Return of the King


 I actually had to click on More Popular matches to get to the title I searched for and it's just ridiculous. Even if it's an exact match I still have to click again and if I misspelled it by one letter then i'm really messed up.

The other thing that is now shot is my ability to search for episodes on the start page and getting the episodes is now pretty much shot because of this. There are just way too many clicks.  I used to when I typed in Wyatt Earp The Bribe into the starting search box it brought it up right away. The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp and the episode The Bribe. Now if I type in Wyatt Earp The Bribe into a search engine I get a link to The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp and if I try to narrow it down by episodes.....I don't even get The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp and The Bribe as a choice. 

Obviously whomever designed to do this search engine algorithm change with this website relied way too much on popularity and not enough on what the person searched for. Something needs to be badly adjusted by that. If you want to list close popular results than whatever but the results that should be first  and up top in anything should be what you actually typed. I've actually had 6 different people e-mail me complaining about the search engine and the redesign and honestly there shouldn't be a big trailer preview on the primary actor's page, if people want to see them, they can click on trailers. 

There are some good things about it. I like the ability to separate them by genre but if you do that you really should factor the number of episodes into the overall total. James Arness for example. it says he did 25 westerns. In reality he did 635 Gunsmoke alone. Might be nice if when you do that genre separation if you list up there the overall total of say westerns than movies, tv series, and number of tv episodes to give a far better picture of the career.  

It's just a bit of constructive criticism but also realize not to come off as egotistical but this is coming from somebody who has a masters degree in marketing and is about to complete his PhD in computer science. It's just needs a bit of tweaking search engine wise where it's not based on a fuzzy search logic.






Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled IMDb search results
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Issues with the updated /find search results display

3

rhgrafix

8 Messages

 • 

166 Points

@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!

2 years ago

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

@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.

2 years ago

0

keyword_expert

2.7K Messages

 • 

47K Points

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.

(edited)

2 years ago

0

ben_hampel

481 Messages

 • 

8.5K Points

2 years ago

Occasionally if I notice a name that has many, many name pages like "John Smith" as a hypothetical. I try to find all the Self or Actor that I can identify and try to find images of them. Also update if Self doesn't have any further info. I find how they were identified in the episode or documentary and add the info. My record was finding 18 primary images for one name. Or also if less famous people have the same name as a famous person like "Jennifer Lawrence". There is a MAGA person with the same name so I added a photo of her so there would be no confusion later on. 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Issues with the updated /find search results display

7

Vande

225 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

@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?

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

He is an image partner, Vande.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

Vande

225 Messages

 • 

4.3K Points

@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.

2 years ago

ben_hampel

481 Messages

 • 

8.5K Points

@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.

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

ben_hampel

481 Messages

 • 

8.5K Points

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

2 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

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

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

2 years ago

frederic_allain

11 Messages

 • 

218 Points

2 years ago

Why did you change the search engine settings?
Before, when I searched for "Noret", it would have proposed me "Noiret" for sure! Now, searches are difficult.

Frederic Allain

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Search issue
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Issues with the updated /find search results display

0

Kevin_Powell

Employee

 • 

27 Messages

 • 

314 Points

2 years ago

@bderoes -- thank you for keyword search-related feedback. The relevant teams teams are continuing to prioritize keyword search updates to improve results and relevant data. The team has reviewed your post and will consider it as we plan ongoing improvements.

Thank you for the clear feedback - please reach out again at any time. 

0

Related Conversations

Loading...

Helpful Widget

© 1990-2024 by IMDb.com, Inc.