Updates to Title Reference View

  • 6
  • Announcement
  • Updated 4 weeks ago
  • (Edited)
Please note: this message is about the Title Reference View, an advanced, opt-in setting, which is only used by a subset of select users.  If you don’t use this view, this announcement can be disregarded.

Today (December 19th 2017) we are announcing the release of an updated Title Reference View.  The new Title Reference View merges the previous “combined” and “reference” experiences into a single data-centric view containing full cast and crew credits.  While we realize there are some changes between the new and old versions, this new page still provides a condensed, data-centric representation of the title and is based on past surveys and contributor feedback.  As part of a larger initiative to modernize our software (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features), this page needed to be rebuilt.   The older page, while valuable, had major issues impacting its maintainability and overall speed.  The new page is now on modern, scalable software which can be improved and expanded over time.  For example, the new page is significantly faster, in both page load time and the data itself.  Title data is now rapidly published, allowing users the ability to find and update title information as soon as it is available (the old page was typically 2-3 days behind). 

While the new page is not exactly the same as the old, we still believe the new page properly represents the data itself.  If you notice an issue, please let us know.  We will be monitoring this thread to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible.

Here are some frequently asked questions:

What does the new page look like?
Here is screenshot.  To toggle between the standard title display and the reference page, please update your user preferences as detailed below.
 

How do I see the new Title Reference View?
On “Site Settings\Update general site preference”, at https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general selecting this option will redirect you to the new page:




What happened to the Name Reference View?
As part of the larger project to modernize our software, we have decided to deprecate the Name Reference View.  While the differences between the primary title display and the title reference view are significant, the differences between the name displays were less extreme.

Why didn’t you include User Review detail on the new page?
We are actively working to add this information.  Check back soon.

Thanks
Nic
Photo of Nic Bachhuber

Nic Bachhuber, Employee

  • 55 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 6
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4884 Reply Likes
Well, after a first (quick) look, it seems that at last, a positive change has been brought!
Photo of Tom Patten

Tom Patten

  • 6 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Where's the positive change?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7215 Posts
  • 9379 Reply Likes
It's more of a neutral change, which is why I've not been able to give much positive or negative feedback. This is one of the few changes that actually entails some bit of hope.
Photo of Tom Patten

Tom Patten

  • 6 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I don't know if I like this new view. I miss not seeing the 10 stars and being able to click the user ratings right next to it. It feels more like I'm viewing it on a mobile phone than a desktop.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4814 Reply Likes
This is a data-centric view aimed at contributors and is probably not for you in that case.  We recommend un-checking the options on https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general and using the standard IMDb interface. 
Photo of Elwood Blues

Elwood Blues

  • 41 Posts
  • 59 Reply Likes
I don't understand the logic behind this. Why do you think a contributor would not like to access this data directly? As a contributor,  I would like to have back the 10 stars, the user ratings AND the link to my vote history.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7212 Posts
  • 9373 Reply Likes
In a sense, it's aimed at contributors who spend more time editing cast lists, crew lists and plot information than rating or reviewing titles, I guess. The missing features are still important, though. We would be glad to have them back.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4814 Reply Likes
 I would like to have back the 10 stars, the user ratings AND the link to my vote history.
Please see the grab from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/reference below. The user rating is highlighted in red with your vote (if applicable) to its right (blue star).  Your vote history can be accessed from any IMDb page from the menu in the upper right, see purple highlighting: 

Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4814 Reply Likes
For context please see https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0

The software which served these pages does not exist any more and after Monday even the hardware it used to run upon will be gone. 

Constructive feedback on the new reference pages are welcome if you a high volume data contributor, if not, please revert to the standard view and constructive feedback is welcome instead there too.  If neither suit your needs then http://m.imdb.com/ also works on a desktop browser.
Photo of Calle Lindström

Calle Lindström

  • 3 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
This is awful. The classic design was the best one. This new cluttered one that was introduced a few years ago where you can't find anything you want is horrible and I used the option to see the old design and now it's gone. Why replace a good design with a bad one? Now I can't even find the user ratings without scrolling down the menu on the right. 

I've been using IMDb since 1999 and  have been a Top 100 contributor in the past. it seems all the "improvements" are just making everything worse. I remember when you could sort a persons movies by user ratings and number of votes. You'd get one list of the Acting credits, one of Directing credits, etc. Another great feature that was replaced with a new one where all the movies are lumped together no matter if they're Acting, Directing or just "Thank you"s. IMDb is turning into a mess.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4815 Reply Likes
For context,  please see https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0 
Now I can't even find the user ratings without scrolling down the menu on the right. 
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/reference -- please see the red highlighting below. Or is the issue that you would like the number of votes linked to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/ratings -- if so, we can look at this?



I remember when you could sort a persons movies by user ratings and number of votes. You'd get one list of the Acting credits, one of Directing credits, etc.
We have not removed that feature. From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/ see the "By rating" link in the right hand menu:



which will take you to http://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?sort=user_rating&explore=title_type&role=nm0000229 and then you can use the refine menu, the grab below shows title type:



and then you can do the same on "Job Types" to, say, refine by director and lo and behold, The highest rated feature films direct by Steven Spielberg:

http://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?explore=title_type&role=nm0000229&ref_=filmo_ref_job_typ&...

You can combine any of the other filters plus the links in the right of the /name/ page for by year | genre | keyword | votes all work in the same way.   This is more powerful than anything offered on the old pages. 

(Edited)
Photo of Crusader_of_Melnibone

Crusader_of_Melnibone

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Aaand still no box office data in the reference view.

So what's the point of discarding the old reference/combined views if the new one does not display all the data? I still have to log out or switch views if I want to have the full data from both the default view and the reference view. Frustrating.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6786 Posts
  • 4685 Reply Likes
Good catch, thanks. We have opened a ticket with the appropriate team.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6786 Posts
  • 4685 Reply Likes
This has been added back. Thanks again for the problem report. 
Photo of Crusader_of_Melnibone

Crusader_of_Melnibone

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
(copying my comment from the last page)

Thanks for listening.

But, while it does include "budget", "opening weekend" and "worldwide gross", it is missing "USA gross" in comparison to the default view.
Photo of Nic Bachhuber

Nic Bachhuber, Employee

  • 55 Posts
  • 25 Reply Likes
Hi,
Can you provide an example of a title which is missing USA gross on the reference view but it exists in the default?  We have added this functionality but perhaps its missing in all scenarios.

Here is an example which contains USA gross for both views
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/reference

Thanks
Nic
Photo of Crusader_of_Melnibone

Crusader_of_Melnibone

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Sure. Actually, I don't need to provide an example, as ALL titles that I checked (even the example you provided) ARE missing USA gross - at least I can not see it in my view. So maybe it is a localization issue?

(Edited)
Photo of Nic Bachhuber

Nic Bachhuber, Employee

  • 55 Posts
  • 25 Reply Likes
Thanks.  I'm following up with the team.  I appreciate your patience as we sort this out.
Photo of Crusader_of_Melnibone

Crusader_of_Melnibone

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Any updates on this?
Photo of cartman_1337

cartman_1337

  • 416 Posts
  • 559 Reply Likes
The main problem with this new reference view, the way I see it, is the new menu bar, which has been moved from a small, non-intrusive list on the left side (before) to a huge, ugly and very intrusive block of useless information on the right side of the screen, hugely narrowing the width of the data blocks.

Please move the menu back to the left side, make it as wide as the poster image, and keep the poster image and menu in its own column as before, and have all the other sections to the right of it, as before, and I'm sure most would be pleased. Currently, as you go down a title screen, the data seems very condensed, and there is a huge area of open space to the right that should have been used for data.

Also, now that you have made the reference view in the new software, there's no excuse for not including the budget and box office information in the new view.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7213 Posts
  • 9377 Reply Likes
We should have the option of having the index (or "table of contents") menu being displayed on the left or the right. Also, that menu as it exists for the new (2010) platform overall deserves to as good as or better than the one of the old platform. For the past seven years, since its introduction, it has not really been better.
Photo of cartman_1337

cartman_1337

  • 416 Posts
  • 559 Reply Likes
I also miss the keywords list at the top.
Photo of Elwood Blues

Elwood Blues

  • 41 Posts
  • 59 Reply Likes
So, judging by the comments here, most people are not happy about this. As far as I understood Col, changes can be made, so I hope this gets, at least partially, redesigned as to resemble the old view (right now, "vertical video syndrome" springs into my mind whenever I look at the site).

One suggestion for improvement: right now I have set the title display country to Original. At the top of the page, it site shows the US rating but the German release date (for Star Wars: TLJ, although a German rating is listed). It would be useful if rating and release date are from the same country.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1056 Posts
  • 1275 Reply Likes
Thanks IMDb! This is exactly right!
Just two things though:
-Can you put the (attributes) back in the cast listings? They're currently only visible in the update forms.
-Can you make the name pages as clean and lean as the title pages please? Currently, one gets rather distracted when visiting them because the whole right part, the "Known for'" section and the pics at the bottom crave attention for other stuff.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4816 Reply Likes
-Can you put the (attributes) back in the cast listings? They're currently only visible in the update forms.
Sorry about that. There's already a bug open for this. 
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1056 Posts
  • 1275 Reply Likes
Thanks for the swift reply Col. Good to know there's already a bug open for this.
Photo of Nic Bachhuber

Nic Bachhuber, Employee

  • 55 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
We have fixed the issue with the missing cast attributes (i.e. uncredited).  We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
Photo of Katana

Katana

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Urgh! I dreaded this day... RIP reference view.
Most notable omission: why no 'Add to watchlist'? But oh boy, there is more;

The truly great thing that kept me using the reference view for all these years (am a casual user, don't use IMDb for work) was that

1: I avoided the vomit explosion that is the default view. Whenever I go to IMDb on a not-logged-in browser, my immediate reaction is "Ugh!".
2: I could get a more effective overview of the details I wanted to know, while avoiding the cacophony of too much and too little that is the default view.

Suggestion for IMDb:
Surely it must be possible (and desired by others than me, it seems?) to have an intermediate view. That is, with the current layout (and all the under-the-hood changes that necessitated this in the first place), but with a "compressed" listing,
I.e. only above-the-line cast and crew, like the old reference view had and current default view has, with a "See full cast" link. And "See all crew" or "See all producers/visual effects/etc." (depending on granularity) respectively.

For some titles this might not be necessary, but have a look at Game of Thrones - or any other TV-show with many individual cast/crew. That is an impossibly long page! Yes, it's easy to search for something, with it all on one page (which can be done smartly in other ways), but it doesn't make logical sense to scroll that page and read it all.
I wonder how much of an overlap there is with IMDbPro. Wouldn't a professional user request something nicer and more useful than the above example in the first place?

I fear that reference view is dead and has simply become too annoying to use going forward :'-(
Photo of Katana

Katana

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
As a side note: I've always wondered how many casual users would actually prefer the previous reference view over the default view, if they knew it was existed.
Photo of Katana

Katana

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I forgot to point out (and it's too late to edit my previous comment) that there is literally a button "Full Cast and Crew" (/fullcredits) in the right column, which can be used when you want what is effectively now the "reference view". It's a mindboggling change by IMDb!
(Edited)
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4816 Reply Likes
Official Response
An update on 28 January ... 

Thanks for the feedback so far, please keep it coming as we tune the new contributor focused title reference view. 

Please note for customers who are not contributors, we strongly recommend the standard IMDb title display.  The reference view will always be focused on core data and will be missing non-data features.  You can opt out of reference view at any time via https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general or via the "Change View" link near the top of the reference view title pages. 

We have a fix in progress for the bug preventing the display of the (uncredited) attribute on cast lists. [FIXED]

We are adding support for additions / deletions to your watchlist. [FIXED] 

The poster will be linked to the photo viewer and will open the poster, as in the standard view [FIXED]

The box office information from the standard title view will be added soon. [FIXED]

The year of the title (at the top of the page) will be linked to an advanced search of other titles from that year, as in the standard view. [FIXED]

Add year ranges for TV series [FIXED]

Swap order of writers credits and attributes to match the rest of the page [FIXED]

Faulty display logic for some localized titles [FIXED]

Trivia & goofs not shown as active links in the navigation when all items are spoilers.

Some attributes, including (archive footage) & (credit only) display incorrectly. 

Company credits are missing attributes. 

Mini-series credits not displayed properly [FIXED]

Redirect loop when accessing reference view pages on mobile devices [FIXED]

[also remember from Nic's post above, user reviews will also be added] 

We have already simplified the options on the preferences page at https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general

(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7215 Posts
  • 9379 Reply Likes
Now that mitigations for these acknowledged weaknesses have been implemented, I have a much more positive outlook on the new scheme.

I'm still not sure about it being named "Title Reference View" rather than "Title Combined View"; the extended page path being "reference" rather "combined". For one, it disrupts the many bookmarks I've made to the "combined" pages of many title entries. I would have to change them all, in order to skip or prevent the redirection process. For this new template as it were, the information inside the HTML title tags (<title>...</title>), same as the value of the DOM property document.body.title, has also been altered, which affects how a new bookmark is automatically named by a web browser upon being created. Apart from that, the scheme actually kind of makes sense, in that basically Title Default View replaces the old Title Reference View, while the Name Default View replaces the old Name Reference View.

So, in time, we're probably going to be asking for certain adjustments to both the default views (for titles and for names) and the reference views (for titles and for names). Now that I think about it, maybe in the future, there will be such a distinction as "company default view" and "company reference view", if something is ever done to accommodate non-Pro IMDb subscribers in that regard; just food for thought.
Photo of Jeebus

Jeebus

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New site doesn't work in Opera Mobile.

When trying to go to a title page (combined) in Opera Mobile, it times out with the error message "m.imdb.com redirected you too many times". I have the newest version for Android, Android version 4.4.2. (Oh, I long for the times when web pages were simple and easy to manouver and ctrl+F could get you whatever you wanted.)
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4814 Reply Likes
Thanks for the problem report. We have opened a ticket with the appropriate team.
Photo of Ron

Ron

  • 190 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
I miss the handy link to switch from a title page on the free site, to the same page on the Pro site.  Used to be there in the left nav bar.  Maybe re-add it to the bottom of the new right nav bar?  Thanks.
Photo of Anna

Anna

  • 17 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
If you need to get rid of old reference view, at least give us the option to check/uncheck "People who liked this also liked..." on default layout. That feature slows down the website so much.
Photo of cyber_turnip

cyber_turnip

  • 19 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
I'd like to echo the sentiments that a watchlist button is required.

I'm not a huge fan of this new reference view, but it's an improvement over the alternative modern view.
Photo of Eric Chatterjee

Eric Chatterjee

  • 5 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I don't get it - if the goal was to add more data to the mobile view it fails at THAT too. I just tried to look up the filming locations for a film on the mobile version - and that data was absent from even the non-reference view.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4815 Reply Likes
For context please see https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0

Locations are just one example of the problem which we are starting to address.  Locations are on the web site and iOS app yet not on the mobile site nor Android app -- part of the 2018 plans are to build a more consistent experience (we can not fix all of this with a wave a magic wand overnight, but it is now significantly easier and faster to do so). 
Photo of Tue Sorensen

Tue Sorensen

  • 21 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
What I came here to point out, however, is the genre descriptions. Now there are only room for two keywords in the genre description, and for science fiction movies none of these are "Sci-fi"! "Downsizing" is a clear sci-fi movie, but only listed as "Comedy, Drama". "The Last Jedi" is first and foremost fantasy or sci-fi, but listed as "Action, Adventure". Please tell me it will become possible again to sort movies by more nuanced/accurate genre descriptions in the near future?

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Update to User Reviews.
(Edited)
Photo of Marc Engels

Marc Engels

  • 17 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New reference page.

What with that new reference view? Please give us back the previous old one. Let the first page contain the most important details like before, so you don't have to search for them amongst all other details most of us are not searching for! Before, we could chose for this page in the site preferences, now it's gone. Transportation Department? Hahaha. Who cares? But e.g. nationality, language, runtime? Scroll down completely to the end!!!? What an idea!
Photo of uhmas

uhmas

  • 4 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Just a simple question and before you come to the same reply, over and over, because I haven't read you talk about it, can you answer to why, or what is the reason, or what is it really necessary in any way for to have the full cast and crew listed in the new reference view regardless you consider it as a data-centric page for contributors?

Or, in other terms, what do you consider now as a reference view?

I find very simple to answer. I just beg you to avoid coming with the same reply... again, because, yes, the reference view is for me (is for all of us here complaining); is for me because if I have to choose between a bloated standard page or a bloated unnecessary text reference view, I prefer the reference view, even though, now is useless compared to the previous.


At the same time, you are using loads of AJAX calls to save bandwidth. Great!, nice!, but, can't you even consider to load just a portion of the cast and if you decide to expand it, call it to the server to build the rest of the cast and crew?


And, a final side question, did you have, or did you consider to implement an API [to this supposed new and modern system] to let us build our own simple/un-bloated and useful pages? I'm not good at programming, but, hell, I consider to get into that task, at this point and build a local page to load what I want.


Also, already told, do the side panel less wide. If it is data-centric, make it data-centric, not panel-centric.

I feared the day you remove the reference view, but didn't expect this.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4814 Reply Likes
what is it really necessary in any way for to have the full cast and crew listed in the new reference view regardless you consider it as a data-centric page for contributors?
Happy to answer ... reference view is a highly specialized view of IMDb title pages built only for (and in consultation with) IMDb's top data contributors.  The number of target users for this is in the low number of hundreds.  The aim is to make it easier for these contributors to easily view all of the existing data for a title on one page. This in turn makes it easier to work through the complete credit roll for the title in order to add or correct the data on IMDb.  Nothing more and nothing less. 

If other people want to use the view then they have to bear the above in mind,  and understand there will be limitations in what changes can be made to the view (beyond any bug fixes, of course).  For example, it opens with all credit sections open because this is the feedback we have received from the people for whom the page was built -- it makes it easier to search the existing data to confirm whether a specific credit is already listed when updating IMDb. 

If you are not a top IMDb contributor and you have issues with the page (beyond launch bugs) then by definition the option is not for you, sorry. 

I prefer the reference view, even though, now is useless compared to the previous.
See above, sorry. If you find the page is useless, please reset the option in your site settings.  In the 2010 redesign, our agreement was to keep the old 2007 page design available on the understanding we would not make any changes to it, and it would remain only while the systems powering it were still available.  Although it is (much) later than we planned, the second part of the agreement is no longer true due to https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0 

We appreciate that change is hard.  The vast majority of IMDb's hundreds of millions of customers have been using the regular title pages for over seven years, while you have only just been dropped into it this week, and it can take a while to adjust. If you (or anyone else) has specific feedback on the regular title pages, then please let us know and we will see what we can do to make improvements. 

Finally, although you will not necessarily have noticed this, by using the old interface over the previous seven years, you have always been looking at data which is 24-36 hours behind the rest of IMDb. A view with hundreds of unfixed bugs / issues which have caused the information not to be displayed properly. A view lacking in the latest features and content on IMDb, including: the popular Metacritic score & reviews; full list access; watching options; recommendations; image uploads; and related editorial features. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7212 Posts
  • 9373 Reply Likes
I can't imagine there are any top contributors who appreciate the new reference view. As far as series pages go, it is definitely too much, so much that the page actually loads slowly if the series cast is massive. Col, you've also decided to change what the idea of "reference view" used to mean, basically taking "combined view" and renaming it. Are you seriously telling us that this was done because top contributors asked you to do this? Come on.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4814 Reply Likes
Are you seriously telling us that this was done because top contributors asked you to do this?
Yes, absolutely.  Per the arrangement mentioned above, the two old pages could only continue to exist while the old systems which served them continued to run.  The consistent feedback from contributors over the years since 2010 has been that they needed a view containing all credit data with as few additional features as possible.  We agree with this feedback from our own experiences of entering data directly from credit rolls (something I wish I had more time to do myself these days). 

Our original plan was to actually build the new title reference view on the http://contribute.imdb.com/  site itself when the old views were deprecated, but practical considerations proved too tricky given the tight end-of-year timelines on the technology migrations.  This is why the site settings at https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general position the option like this:

Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4879 Reply Likes
I fully support the current format of the /reference page, and I welcome the tweaks brought to the settings.

Nevertheless, stemming from the participation bulk to this thread, there is an obvious need for a format amounting to the previous /reference one. Could not IMDb take this into consideration?

And merry Christmas to all anyway :)
(Edited)
Photo of Marc Engels

Marc Engels

  • 17 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
What a joke. A mainpage with the main details for everyone (like the old perfect one) and one click to the all detail page for contributors. 'People who like this...' (mostly incorrect) at the bottom or delete it, and instead of using only 1/3 of the width, make it wider => less scrolling. Everybody happy, problem solved.
Photo of Peter Vogl

Peter Vogl

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
This new reference layout is the worst christmas present i've ever gotten.
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4879 Reply Likes
@Mark Engels: If you uncheck "Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)" in the settings, does not it match what you wish? (except for the 1/3 width on the right: I support the general claim to make it narrower!)
Photo of Marc Engels

Marc Engels

  • 17 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes

In my opinion most important is title, year, poster, rate, genre, short resume, director(s), all writers, composers(!), first billed cast, country(!), language()!, runtime(!), release date, ... This and some other's desires can all be visible at the top without scrolling. So handy. All the rest can easily go down or on the empty space on the side or on the full detailed reference view. Monitor screens are usually made horizontal, so why not using it and making a layout for vertical screen? Doesn't make any sense.

(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7212 Posts
  • 9373 Reply Likes
Eric Chatterjee, to put it bluntly, people who share your concerns do not matter. Sorry.
Photo of uhmas

uhmas

  • 4 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Thanks for your answer, Col.

 

I think all I could reply, has been already said, Col, but only a "couple" of notes.

One of the things I read a few times here, since you started changing the names pages, is that they had a delay. And I would say..., who cares about the delay?. What feedback did you get that people cared about X hours delay in a movie information? Maybe someone cares about development status that can’t live without knowing it? Really, it amazes me.

 

while you have only just been dropped into it this week, and it can take a while to adjust.

 Don’t you think we already gave a try to it and we didn't like it? But looks like we are a "minority" (among who?). What a shame.

You would say "among who?", among the feedback. And I'd say, "really, how I hate to not be a whiny user when things just work". I can't give feedback when things just work. Really, I can't. And even though I could have been giving feedback for the new page introduced 7 years ago, my sad experience is that giving feedback, when you are a minority means nothing.


But if feedback is what you want, feedback will you get.


A) Do you think that is "normal" that the standard page (at least in my display), from ~6000px page height, ~2300px (40% of the page) are wasted in:

  1. Jumanji promo
  2. title and movie poster
  3. videos and photos section
  4. recommendations who liked it... (I don't care what others like, really)
  5. and... recommendations for other imdb sections widget (below the contribution suggestion)

Please, remove unwanted sections. Would you do?. Sure not. You could move them to the panel section as links, or maybe with pics, why not.

B) But, wait. 1/3 of side panel? Please, make it about 100px width. Maybe that way we don't have to scroll twice of what we do now. Would you do it? No, probably not.


C) in the panel I don't need to see, what is in streaming, what is around the web, the users lists, the social media links or the users polls.


Long story sort, I only want a quick eye view of a film (or name, as it can be applied to them) details and more text based and less unneeded multimedia.



As a final note. This is just for a shake of a joke.

About the reference view. I did this yesterday after posting and I find funny to post.

You say that this was requested by contributors based on their feedback... All right.

Do you know that the whole reference page, in some cases (I think I tested with "The Walking dead series"), if you would have to send it in paper to them, is about 130 pages in A4 with a half inch margin (top,left,right,bottom) or 75 pages printed on both sides?

Do you imagine yourself sending such "books" to contributors to make edits and sending back to you when they only wanted to edit.... an AKA title, for example?

I know, I know, we are on internet, there is TCP compression, data is "free" (but if you don't ask mobile users) but, still, it is a waste of data transmission for minor edits.

Think about it, just think about it for a second. Poor postal service workers.


And I think that is all I will say here. You moved old users to make a choice between two crappy options, and, believe it or not, you win, I move to standard pages, even though I think is less intuitive and usable, but... who cares. Changes are hard and changes are good. Or some say that.

I will use the options my browser gives to set personal styles and rework the look.


Regards, and sorry for my english, it is not my native language.



I'd miss how clean it was:
https://wayback.archive.org/web/20070522174351/http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/

compared to how ..... it is now
http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/
Photo of opaque

opaque

  • 6 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Mobile site is broken if you are signed in and use reference view. For example;  https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/reference makes both Chrome and Firefox throw a cookie error. Works fine in IE 11.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4815 Reply Likes
Thanks for the problem report. We have opened a ticket with the appropriate team.
Photo of Ron

Ron

  • 190 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
The error that I see is:

The page isn’t redirecting properly

Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7213 Posts
  • 9377 Reply Likes
Right. It's an infinite redirection loop. Very unfortunate.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1056 Posts
  • 1275 Reply Likes
As I've already said: Thanks for this lay-out.
And I just noticed that clicking on the main poster leads to the photo index, so thanks for fixing that.

There are some issues (bugs?) regarding plots though:
-qv's are not shown, only in the Update section, suggesting they are not there while they actually are. Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779962/reference. Can this be fixed?
-Some plot outlines have the See More button, while others do not. This makes it very hard to see whether a plot outline or a plot summary is shown. Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/reference shows a plot outline and doesn't have the See More button. This title: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4995790/reference also shows a plot outline but DOES have the See More button, suggesting it's a plot summary while it is a plot outline. Could you make it so that the See More button is only shown for plot summaries, just like in the previous lay-out?


Happy holidays!!
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4816 Reply Likes
Thanks (and well spotted).  We have opened a ticket for the appropriate team. 
Photo of Mathias Rauen

Mathias Rauen

  • 7 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
> if you do not like it, you are simply not in the target
> customer set by definition

Are you fully aware of what you're saying there?

Basically you're saying that your target customer set is limited to users who don't ever question or criticize anything you do.

I wonder what the purpose of using "getsatisfaction" is if you're flat out ignoring what the majority of users says? From the comments I've read here, at least 90% of the users hate the new reference view. But it seems you couldn't care less.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4815 Reply Likes
Basically you're saying that your target customer set is limited to users who don't ever question or criticize anything you do.
You must be joking here ... our top contributors are often our harshest critics because they use IMDb more than most people and notice if ever anything changes for the worse. 

From the comments I've read here, at least 90% of the users hate the new reference view. But it seems you couldn't care less.
We do care. We care about the title reference view experience for the people for whom it was designed. If title reference view was not designed for you then instead we care about your experience on the regular title page.  You are welcome to post ideas and suggestions for changes to that which can be viewed and voted upon by other customers. 

For a little bit of extra context, well over 99% of customers have been on the regular IMDb experience for the entire 7 years which the old reference view existed, and we have been adding features plus making changes for them.  A fair bit of the reactions here are a completely understandable reaction to sudden change -- change is hard. It has happened with every single redesign we have done since the first IMDb web site launched in 1993. The irony here is that when the 2007 redesign launched, it was greeted with the same "worst change ever" feedback featuring on this thread, yet somehow without any changes it became perfect between 2007 and 2010 (or perhaps just maybe people gave it a chance and started to see the advantages :-); same with the 2005 design to 2007; and so on back to 1993. 
Photo of Mathias Rauen

Mathias Rauen

  • 7 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
I've been using IMDb for as long as I remember, way longer than 2007. I've never had any complaints until 2010. At which point I simply switched to the "reference view" and I was happy again.

I think you're on the wrong track thinking that the "reference view" was only ever used by contributors. That's simply not the case! It was used by many users who preferred the pre-2010 IMDb layout over the current regular view. Now you're replacing our favorite view by a new "contributor view". I've no problem at all with you adding a new contributor view. But I do have a problem with you dropping support for all those users who much prefer the pre-2010 IMDb layout over the current regular layout.

If you say that 99% of the customers have been using the regular IMDb view for the past 7 years then I have no doubt that that's true. But that's probably because 99.9% of those 99% didn't even know a much better alternative had existed. I'd love to see a poll where all customers would have a choice to see the old reference view vs the current default view, and let them pick which they find more useful.

Posting ideas and suggestions for the current default view would be pretty short and simple: Make the basic layout the same as the old reference view, please.
Photo of José Luís Fino

José Luís Fino

  • 3 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Exactly.
Photo of Marc Engels

Marc Engels

  • 17 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes

Right!

Photo of Marc Engels

Marc Engels

  • 17 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes

Is this a website for IMDB-users or for contributors? Apparently for both, but it looks like IMDB sees contributors as the most important point here concerning the utility of the pages. How logic is that? And I was a regular contributor myself though. Most of the visitors are common users who in most case want a quick look on a movie. Without common users contributors have no sense. Want to contribute? Click a link. Simple and completely logic!

Photo of cartman_1337

cartman_1337

  • 416 Posts
  • 559 Reply Likes
If 99% of all IMDb customers use the default view, it is because 98.5% of them are not registered users, and have no other choice...

Coincidentally I do remember the 2007 change, and I'm sure I was one of those who complained back then too. However, that change, and all other before 2010, was nowhere near as dramatic or destructive to the access to useful movie data as the horrible 2010 change, and nothing that has been "added" since has improved it in any way or form. As such, the changes in 2007 and before were indeed more of a case of getting used to the new view, and most of those changes did indeed make data more easily accessible, with very little nonsensical junk filling up the screen. The 2010 change, and all changes since, is not at all comparable, because data is NOT more accessible, and things that before just took up a few lines of useful text can now take up an entire screen, flashed out with junk and too wide menus with too large fonts, and previous single line entries of information now taking up 2 or 3 lines without giving any more information. As such, most of us will NOT grow to like the "new" view; we've been complaining about it since 2010, and it will certainly not stop now that you removed the last shred of goodness there was to the site. I've seen the default view enough over the last 7 years to grow well used to it, too, but I do not like it one iota more now than I did when I first saw it. So please, give us, and everybody else, a GOOD new DEFAULT view, as well as a good "contributer" view.

98.99% of those 99% you're talking about don't complain one way or another, no matter how the page looks... But that doesn't necessarily mean they prefer the new look to the old. In fact, I think I've yet to actually read or hear a comment from someone who actually prefers the 2010 look over the 2007 look.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7213 Posts
  • 9377 Reply Likes
Calling out potential sophism on the part of the company is a plus, cartman_1337.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1056 Posts
  • 1275 Reply Likes
I see the (attributes) in the cast section have been brought back (thanks!), but (archive footage) is now written as (archiveFootage). Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7632778/reference.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4816 Reply Likes
Thanks, yes, this one is already on the bug list. 
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1056 Posts
  • 1275 Reply Likes
Okay, thanks for the swift response Col.
(Edited)
Photo of shill66

shill66

  • 2 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

Can you please put the MPAA cert number on the reference page after the USA rating? Just like it shows on the regular page after you click Certifications (see Parents Guide example) and used to show on the combined page.


(Edited)
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4815 Reply Likes
Thanks for the problem report. We have opened a ticket with the appropriate team.
Photo of Morgan Sage

Morgan Sage

  • 11 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Reference view.

I can't access any of my imdb movie pages at all from my iPhone. I can access only the people pages. For movie pages, my iPhone says "too many redirects." What's that about, and how can I get back into the site?

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: I can't access my imdb pro on my mobile device.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4815 Reply Likes
Sorry about this. It is bug with the reference view when accessed on a mobile device. We have a ticket open to fix this (see above). In the meantime as a workaround, you can either disable the reference view option or use the IMDb mobile app on your phone.
Photo of Chris Shaw

Chris Shaw

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Any progress on this ticket?
Thanks
Photo of John Embury

John Embury

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled The New Format has Ruined my Contribution Experience.

I mainly add/fix up the credits for television shows. Some need little work but others seem to be almost works of fiction with nearly 100 corrections. To keep track of what needs correcting I use a text editor. I used to copy the credits from the IMDB page and paste (with appropriate formatting) into a text editor. From the TV show’s credits, I make the corrections in the editor. When finished, I copy/paste and drag/drop back into the IMDB editing page. It’s simple and fairly quick.

However, the new page formatting has made this very difficult. It’s use of tables and the way they have been implemented has made it difficult to use in the text editor. The layout is difficult to put in a readable form that is easy to edit.

The new page format is fine for a small number of corrections but is difficult when there are many to be done due to the use of tables.

So far, I haven’t resorted to scripting to try and fix it but I have tried exporting from various browsers and importing in various applications. No luck so far without having to do a lot of extra editing/formatting on my part.

Question, how do other people do the editing of the credits, especially those that came up with the new format? If somebody has a better way of doing it I would be very interested.

John
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8118 Reply Likes
When trying to use a "copy and paste" approach, The presence of a carriage return after the ellipsis is thanks to the HTML "div" tags around each character name. I don't see how the tag is necessary, since the character name has its own cell in the table.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6786 Posts
  • 4685 Reply Likes
Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the inconvenience.  We have some ideas on how we can better address this use case and a ticket is now open (it will be delayed behind more visible bug fixes though, sorry).