Taylor's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

2.3K Messages

 • 

40.5K Points

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020 7:28 PM

Closed

Title pages — new version available for sneak peek

IMDb is working on updates to the Title page. The new version of the page is mobile-responsive, meaning all features are available on devices of all sizes, and has a modern look and feel — otherwise it maintains all the functionality of the current page, though some features have moved on the page.

The new version of the page is available to a limited group of fans during a beta period. During the beta, some features are still under construction, and you may encounter bugs.

UPDATE: now available!

  • Recently viewed
  • Related News
  • Awards & Top 250
  • More like this
  • Character” links are now included in the Cast section.
  • The Episodes section now includes a link to all top-rated episodes for TV series.

For more information, check out this Help article.

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

4 years ago

That turned into your misconception all the manner around with the weakest so known as source viable it really is located with a simple google search -a bot generated spam web page that uses a scraped old version of imdb statistics-
I simply said it wishes to be proved with a actual proof that you did no longer provide.

2 Messages

 • 

72 Points

4 years ago

I don't know how to recheck a movie which I have already seen on the new website version...

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Checkins broken

5 Messages

 • 

100 Points

4 years ago

This is terrible. The old version allows you to see everything all at once. This is like looking at it on a mobile device. Ridiculous change. No reason for it. I really hope there is a classic view or whatever option added to settings to keep it the current way because along with all the other crap the intrusive take over from Amazon has caused I may for the first time in 15 years need to find a new site for movie info.

And for the record I don't use the mobile version of any informational sites including this one because all you do is scroll around trying to find what you want instead of entire cast and stuff on page. It is not user friendly and will cause nothing but a bunch of extra scrolling and crap including extra clicks to find info. Stop trying to make it cool and all pretty and just leave it in the informative format it is now.

5 Messages

 • 

100 Points

@ACT_1

Not sure exactly why you included me in a new user message. I said in post i've been using it for 15 years. I'm a programmer/analyst and am on the computer 12 hours a day, 7 days a week week with a browser window for all my streaming sites and two imdb windows open at all times.

I also watch over 100 TV shows and around 3-4 hundred movies a year and rate everything on here. I also export it as a back up my ratings. This doesn't make my opinion any more valuable than anyone else's but including me in a new user post kind of threw me back a bit. No biggie though as I think maybe your post might have flagged me due to words I used as opposed to an intentional inclusion.

The new page is cluttered and takes more work and time to find the information I'm looking for. I also said if the new page comes with a classic view option then I'll stick around which I will not look for until the page actually goes live. At that time I will see what the options are and either choose to stay or not. The last thing I need after so much time on the computer is to do a bunch of scrolling or clicking to see who's in every episode of a tv show or a movie I'm watching or any other info I want to find out. 

Like all things we always have choice. Rather than stick around and complain I'll just move on. But since I was offered a preview and asked for my opinion I've given it. See I'm easy. I've turned off all notifications for replies now because I will not sit on a forum and just wine and complain once I've completed what I was asked to do. I have better things to do.

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

4 years ago

Hello everyone!

I am sorry but i have been using the new version since the very first days and now i switched back to old version. i was patient, but always obfuscated. The new version is not good and i dont mean visually. In your way to make it responsive you have moved the info here and there without considering the way the info should be read, say, the left to right rule is not respected, among other primordial things, like the size of the date, or the genres. Obfuscated by the way the new version dictates my eye to look at the info: it feels like if reading a book and after the first line on top left of page, you would have to go look at bottom right of the next page to keep reading, and then back at the top right of the earlier page, and then to the bottom-left of the next one, and again to the top-left where you started.  The spacing of the info is not good: you have to offer us sections where the eye naturally displaces after page is loaded, ltr sections here and there which shows a CLUSTER of hierarchized info, info of a certain type here (float :left), and a certain less important type there (float:right). It is the way the user reads -ltr- (which is the way we 'cognize') what determines the hierarchy and the size of the info: the old version has it PERFECT: title, date, rate, time, genre, release; poster, video, resume, and then, on the right -which comes as a blindspot for the eye- the less important info (imdb rate, votes etc). It would be wise if the new version would not break this structure. My advice to you guys is to respect the old version logic as it is well-thought and helps us to displace quickly on each page!    

(edited)

31 Messages

 • 

456 Points

An enlighten and lucid response -- which means this new crop of project managers won't understand you.  And it's not that I wish to come across as mean, but I am overwhelmed by the thinking that this new style is what we want.  Are young people today suffering from some kind of 'broken thinking'.

Some things should be redone.  60 years ago, paper lists / reports were almost always UPPER case, but that's not a natural reading process.  The brain is wanting Mixed Case because word recognition includes word shapes, and UPPER case removes that element.  A natural writing process is to create outlines, and idea lists.  So a natural reading process is to also be comfortable with lists ... especially when we are searching for a single element within the content.

Naxos is correct, and these thoughts should not be dismissed.  What should be dismissed is whatever inspired this disaster of a layout change -- mobile devices or not.  When users are frustrated by the strategy of presenting information, they are consequentially impeded at locating the information that drew them there in the first place.  And shortly after that, they just won't come back at all.

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

4 years ago

Hello everyone!

I am sorry but i have been using the new version since the very first days and now i switched back to old version. i was patient, but always obfuscated. The new version is not good and i dont mean visually. In your way to make it responsive you have moved the info here and there without considering the way the info should be read, say, the left to right rule is not respected, among other primordial things, like the size of the date, or the genres. Obfuscated by the way the new version dictates my eye to look at the info: it feels like if reading a book and after the first line on top left of page, you would have to go look at bottom right of the next page to keep reading, and then back at the top right of the earlier page, and then to the bottom-left of the next one, and again to the top-left where you started.  The spacing of the info is not good: you have to offer us sections where the eye naturally displaces after page is loaded, ltr sections here and there which shows a CLUSTER of hierarchized info, info of a certain type here (float :left), and a certain less important type there (float:right). It is the way the user reads -ltr- (which is the way we 'cognize') what determines the hierarchy and the size of the info: the old version has it PERFECT: title, date, rate, time, genre, release; poster, video, resume, and then, on the right -which comes as a blindspot for the eye- the less important info (imdb rate, votes etc). It would be wise if the new version would not break this structure. My advice to you guys is to respect the old version logic as it is well-thought and helps us to displace quickly on each page!    

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled The new version is not good and i dont mean visually.

(edited)

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

4 years ago

The new site in my opinion really has gone backwards.

How can it be removed so it more like the previous version

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled how to complain about the new site

125 Messages

 • 

1.7K Points

4 years ago

Horrible. As every single change IMDb does. 

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

4 years ago

The mix of dark and light theme is tiring for eyes. The preference for white or black varies among people, but I doubt anyone want those mixed on the same page.

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

4 years ago

I would suggest to use the horizontal space better. The page is indeed responsible to look better on narrow devices, but on large screens do not adapt well to use all horizontal space instead of more scroll.

Even on narrow devices, starting with "Storyline" and down the design is limited to a column less that whole screen width, with white space unused to the right.

9 Messages

 • 

142 Points

4 years ago

Wow, just wow ... did you get a bunch of 90 year olds with ZERO vision to redesign the page? This is the worst redesign I've seen in a long, long time, for any site. Everything is like 5 times larger than it needs to be -- the fonts, the images, the whitespace -- EVERYTHING! After using IMDB for over 20 years, I'm not sure how this ever made it past the "you've got to be kidding" phase of a redesign. I'm on desktop, for the record. And just, NO!

31 Messages

 • 

456 Points

I like the way you summarize the problem.  Their idea for creating a better fit for mobile devices is nuts.  I replied to staff, directly asking why -- what are the reasons for this?  No response at all.  It feels like they have made up their minds to completely screw over desktop users.  I have no idea how to get them to see how bad an idea this is, and it's likely many, many desktop users will quit using the website our of frustration.

9 Messages

 • 

142 Points

Well they’ve got 14 pages of comments, and it’s tough to find any positive ones. Could be the same blind people are reading the feedback as did the redesign.

9 Messages

 • 

142 Points

Sorry, I can't read the font, could you please make it FIFTY points larger?

3 Messages

 • 

82 Points

4 years ago

Issue #1: the new "add to list" button is way too inconspicous, especially if the movie's poster has a black background:

It took me a while to find it, and that's knowing it existed, it looks like a plus sign, and was there somewhere. Most new users (who therefore don't know there a list function and what the button is supposed to look like) will most likely not find it. The button should really be separate from the movie poster and much more visible.

Issue #2: When submitting feedback about the new design on the feedback form:

Once you click "Next" it simply thanks you for your feedback, without allowing you to explain what exactly was wrong in the webpage. Therefore, this form is currently almost useless. I assume this is a bug with the form.

Issue #3: It appears you cannot log into this Community page with your regular IMDb account, having to create an entirely new account. Many people who otherwise would provide valuable feedback will not want to go through the hassle of creating a new account just to post it. I almost didn't! This page should be integrated with the normal IMDb website login.

(edited)

Champion

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

118.4K Points

ericobnn,

Re: #2. Always use the first option "was broken". It gives you space to describe the problem. (I complained about the feedback form weeks ago, and staff just advised using the first option. No idea why they don't fix the form.)

Re: #3. This feedback site is a service not owned by IMDb. I'm glad they didn't give my IMDb login credentials to a 3rd party (sprinklr).

Re: #1. There's also the more verbal version, "Add to Watchlist" at the very bottom right of your screenshot. That's also where to add to custom lists.

10.7K Messages

 • 

225.4K Points

Just to note, not only do IMDb's own policies prohibit the company from giving its members' login credentials to a third party, this wouldn't even be necessary to accomplish integration of the subscriber, as there exists an authentication method known as "social login" for that purpose. Unfortunately, in order for both IMDb and Sprinklr to accomplish this, it may require that both of them be upgraded to accommodate it. This message is primarily directed to bderoes but also for ericobnn.

One complication I can see in regard to that is that at least some of IMDb's customers might wind up confused about the fact that it is already possible apiece to log into IMDb via account on Amazon, Google and Facebook, on top of the fact that there is crucial distinction between IMDb member accounts and IMDb name pages, whilst having an Amazon customer account is required for paying for an IMDbPro subscription. A lot of people would be left with the impression that they have four conjoined accounts, even though it is just three (since an IMDb name page is not an account). It might just add an additional layer of potential confusion and heartache, especially for people who might want to close down all three accounts at once.

One more thing. Imagine if all websites provided social login to other websites (and imagine if all websites made use of the plugins/widgets accordingly). The whole Web might become a complete and total mess of complicated feedback loops. Hahaha!

11 Messages

 • 

234 Points

4 years ago

I assume this is a case of growing so accustomed to something it becomes unnoticeable, but the section layout has always been a mess.  Having the little plot summary w/ a few cast followed by photos, then extended cast/crew, then similar films (!), then detailed plot, etc....it's so random it's nonsensical.  I think "info at a glance" is important to have on sites like this but with imdb you have to scroll through everything to get key info.  Please put the details section on the top of the page, or better yet customization sort/hide options in user cp.  I'd use the site 10 times as much if I could hide all sections I don't need.  As it is I typically just google a film cuz I can see the info much quicker that way than searching on imdb.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Good redesign, but please reorganize the sections.

Champion

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

118.4K Points

I'd like to see the title page work more like name pages, where various sections are closed unless the person has a small quantity of credits. I definitely prefer a more vertically compressed approach, and the new version has gone the opposite direction.

I'm surprised your post hasn't been merged into 

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/title-pages-new-version-available-for-sneak-peek/5fc7eae5ce4ce1357af24f6d

10.7K Messages

 • 

225.4K Points

I have a monkey script that partially collapses the "Known For" section, except for when the cursor is over the remaining visible portion. I don't know whether or not the commands and conventions used in the source code are compatible with every contemporary browsing experience, though.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

4 years ago

I honesty cannot see where the 'new' format is an improvement. The current format tells me everything that I need, at a glance (including date released) at the top of the page. The only improvement I would like to see to the 'old' format is the inclusion of category. For example, when looking up a Warner Bros. cartoon, tell me (accurately please) if it was released as a 'Looney Tunes' or 'Merrie Melodies'. In any case, major thumbs down on the 'new' format.

1 Message

 • 

80 Points

4 years ago

Just reviewed the preview and quickly switched back. This new design is frustrating for a number of reasons.

  • Everything is TOO large. Fonts, images, whitespace. It's all excessive. The view starts being useable at 67%.
  • The design was clearly created by someone using a touchpad without thought to mouse scrollwheel users.

Your design team is wrong. PLEASE do not deploy this permanently!

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

4 years ago

I wanted to make some comments about the recent/new changes to the IMDB site (the design which is evidently being phased in). The original IMDB is--at least to me--more convenient to use.  The new design is not, I think, as user-friendly.  The original format allowed one to get a quick (and comprehensive) overview of a show, say, or of someone's career. With the new format, it seems, you have to click on too many different areas, to get the same full sense of  things.  I hope IMDB will re-consider the changes which are being implemented--and that IMDB will (at least in part) bring back some of the stylistic features of the original site.  Thanks. 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled What do you think of the changes to the IMDB site?