IMDb new advanced title search

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 2 weeks ago
  • Answered
Now the results on IMDb advanced title search appear with bizarre descriptions, like "Released between 1950-01-01 and 1959-12-31 User Rating at least 7 Rating Count at least 5,000 Not Classics.". Why change something that was ok? At least now when we look for films in IMDb rating order, the movies with the same rating number are not appearing in popularity order anymore. They are appearing in US RELEASE ORDER. Why can't we simply have an accurate IMDb rating order search result anymore? Why? Why?
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 108 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 1 month ago

  • 3
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6197 Posts
  • 3374 Reply Likes
This is the new search technology which replaces the old system and fixes many bugs in the old one, including the removal of the limit on 10,000 results, and it also adds support for the "!" operator to remove more result sets (for now by hand editing the URLs).   This is intended as a drop-in replacement for the old system.  If you are experiencing problems with the new system, please let us know:

1. The URL of the problem search result 
2. The location of the link to this result on IMDb.com (or whether it is a bookmarked search). 

Note it is not always easy to generate the perfect English description for every combination of parameters, but if you provide specific examples, we can take a look at fine-tuning the wording. 

For example, although you have always been able to do: https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&release_date=2018-01-01,&languages=en you can now do the opposite query: https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&release_date=2018-01-01,&!languages=en
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4718 Posts
  • 5447 Reply Likes
Nice.
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 4894 Posts
  • 4753 Reply Likes
Perhaps the search parameters in the descriptions could be separated with commas.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4718 Posts
  • 5447 Reply Likes
Meaning?
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 4894 Posts
  • 4753 Reply Likes
"Released between 1950-01-01 and 1959-12-31, User Rating at least 7, Rating Count at least 5,000, Not Classics"

instead of

"Released between 1950-01-01 and 1959-12-31 User Rating at least 7 Rating Count at least 5,000 Not Classics"
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4718 Posts
  • 5447 Reply Likes
Hi, Angelo Pilla. Could you clarify the problems with the ordering, by presenting an example?
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 108 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
Now it turns back to normal again, thanks. 
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 108 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
And now it's bizarre again. Why IMDb keep changing things for worse, always?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 4506 Posts
  • 5214 Reply Likes
The setbacks are intended to be temporary, since parts of the site are being renovated from the ground up, in the migration from the old platform to the new. For one reason or another, the new software could not be made before the old software was taken offline.
Photo of plur62

plur62

  • 15 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Please STOP this experiment, everything was fine week ago. Advanced title search is pretty useless now.
Photo of plur62

plur62

  • 15 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Yes. Sorting titles by year, user rating, alphabet, running time ... is not possible when we pass the first 50 results, it always returns us to the first page. Hope this will be fixed soon.

Thanks for answer.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6178 Posts
  • 3325 Reply Likes
Please provide a few URLs of broken searches. 

We cannot reproduce this, sorry.  For example, here are 1940s movies with > 10K votes, sorted by year -> https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&release_date=1940-01-01,1949-12-31&num_... and clicking "Next" takes you to https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&release_date=1940-01-01,1949-12-31&num_... as expected. 
Photo of plur62

plur62

  • 15 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Example: Feature Film (Sorted by Popularity Ascending) 5,001. - 5,050. results https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&start=5001&ref_=adv_nxt and clicking "Runtime" (or Year, A-Z, whatever), we are back on the first 50 results, not (5,001. - 5,050.) https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&sort=runtime,asc
 
?
(Edited)
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6178 Posts
  • 3325 Reply Likes
I see, so your point there is: on https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&start=5001&ref_=adv_nxt when you click "A-Z" in the header, you are now taken to https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&sort=alpha,asc whereas you are expecting it to go to https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&sort=alpha,asc&start=5001 instead? 

I think we could argue this both ways.  By clicking the option in the header, the customer is changing the sort so it's actually better to return to the first page as we have implemented today. Are we missing a use case here for your suggestion of retaining the pagination point in the new sort?
(Edited)
Photo of plur62

plur62

  • 15 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
By returning to the first page, we must click "Next" for 100 times to go on 5001 results, because clicking on URL numbers also does not work anymore.