Updates to Title Reference View

  • 6
  • Announcement
  • Updated 1 month 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 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 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

  • 44 Posts
  • 62 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Elwood Blues

Elwood Blues

  • 44 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Regions are ignored for distributors.

Since the site update, there is a problem with the distributors listings. The issue is that the region information that is in the database is ignored. Instead the page shows the region based on the country code of the company. This is quite obvious for companies who distribute the same movie in different countries, for example Arrow who distributed "The Villainess" in the UK and Ireland.

This is the data stored in the database:



And this is how it is shown:



Is this a known error? Or is it supposed to work that way?
And, since no company has an order number, why is the distributor list not sorted alphabetically? Oh, and since when is "all media" ignored as an attribute?
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4816 Reply Likes
Thanks, yes, this is a known issue and there's a bug open for it. 
Photo of Elwood Blues

Elwood Blues

  • 44 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
Is there any information on when this will be fixed?
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 307 Posts
  • 164 Reply Likes
I have a suggestion for a change to the way TV seasons are displayed. On the series-level page, only the most recent season numbers and years are shown; it is necessary to click on "See All" to display other seasons.

How about reverting to the way that the old reference view did it, and list all the season numbers, as far back as the oldest (Season 1). It means fewer keypresses to get to an episode of a season that is not displayed.


Apart from that annoyance, I think the new reference view page has regained most of the functionality of the old one.

The only thing I miss is the one that has been extensively debated on another thread and has seemingly met with a brick wall: the episode cast list which listed every episode and its cast on a single page.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1063 Posts
  • 1291 Reply Likes
I totally agree with everything you said. I really hope a staffer will respond to these issues.
Photo of cartman_1337

cartman_1337

  • 416 Posts
  • 559 Reply Likes
Watching Napoleon (1927) on Blu-ray, I noticed that the reference view is missing the extra details about running time.

The runtime, as displayed by Reference View:


As opposed to the "general" view:


Interestingly, the only runtime in the reference view, 240 minutes, isn't even mentioned in the general view, so I'd say both views needs a bit of work in this regard.

There should also be a link to "see full technical specs" in that section in the reference view. The reference view is also missing the additional details about Color, which can also be seen in the above pictures. As the view which is meant to give contributors the full details, these sections certainly need some work.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1169 Posts
  • 1357 Reply Likes
Is anyone looking into this problems? I mean there is a link to technical specs at the top of the page but it would be nice to see all run times in reference view.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1190 Posts
  • 1389 Reply Likes
Is there ever going to be an easy way to switch between the views without changing preferences? It seems like "change view" should do exactly that. Change the view of the page. I use mostly reference views but there are some things on the regular page that I like to see, like metascore and reviews. It sucks having to use another browser that I'm not logged into IMDb on in order to see this info.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3548 Posts
  • 3411 Reply Likes

Adrian, Champion

WE need  to have a choice on the page
Change View : Reference View | Regular page view (?)

Toggle back n forth without going to "Site Preferences"
https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general