Name reference view

  • 28
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Old thread

I have my IMDb account set to "Show reference view (old title/name page layout)."

Starting today, the site doesn't appear to be consistently following this setting. Some pages do view in the correct reference-view layout, but clicking a link to another page tends to undo this and present the unwanted new-style layout.

I can still manually access pages by appending "/reference" to the URL, so the feature is clearly still active - the site just seems to be ignoring my account preference for this view.
Photo of Stephen Schenck

Stephen Schenck

  • 2 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 28
Photo of Henrietta Dooley

Henrietta Dooley

  • 3 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled reference view.

I only ever want to look at reference view and it seems to still be working normally for movies/shows, but actors' pages are coming up in the new view and I really do not want to use the new view ever.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4826 Reply Likes
Official Response
The name reference view is no longer available, sorry.  For background please see https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0

The name reference view is basically the old view of IMDb name pages which was last updated in 2010. It is unsupported, full of bugs, runs 24-36 hours behind the rest of the site, and lacks any of the features launched in the last 7+ years.  It is not recommended for general use. Our agreement back in 2010 was that we would allow reference view to continue as long as the software powering it was still running (and we would make no updates to the view itself).  We expected this agreement to last a year at most, the fact it has lasted over 7 years is a happy or unhappy accident, depending upon your point of view.  Unhappy in our case. 

A heads-up on title reference view whose days are similarly and severely numbered.  We will, however, continue to support an updated version of the "combined" title view (selected via the "Always display full cast and crew credits" option) which will be re-implemented on the new technology platform with a comparable design and features (but without the old bugs and delayed updates).  This should launch before the end of the year which marks the deadline for the full and final switch-off of the old (early 2000s era) IMDb software. 
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3789 Posts
  • 3690 Reply Likes



Col Needham, Official Rep
The name reference view is basically the old view of IMDb name pages
which was last updated in 2010.
It is unsupported, full of bugs,
runs 24-36 hours behind the rest of the site,
and lacks any of the features launched in the last 7+ years. 
It is not recommended for general use
- - -

bhoerbelt
IMDb member since December 14 2010
IMDb Member 7 years
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur24480000/

fest-07476
IMDb member since December 13 2017
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur83230000/

58,750,000 users registered in 7 years
that may not know about Site Preferences
https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general


You can count the Members with
[ X ]  Show reference view (old title/name page layout)
and Active Members with
[__] Show reference view (old title/name page layout)

Not all the 83,230,000 members are active?

- - -

Tom Hanks
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000158/ (Not reference view)

these are paid ads WE do not see on the reference view

- "The IMDb Show" Explores Midnight Movie Origins
- Around The Web Powered by ZergNet
- On Amazon Video
- Do you have a demo reel?
- Connect with IMDb
- IMDb See what's paying
  http://aax-us-east.amazon-adsystem.com ... http://www.imdb.com/showtimes
- Steven Spielberg's Most Mind-Blowing Easter Eggs
 
How many click on
- User Lists
- How much of Tom Hanks's work have you seen?
- User Polls



(Edited)
Photo of moodri

moodri

  • 72 Posts
  • 79 Reply Likes
Col,

If we’re stuck with the current view for name pages, can you at least give users the option of removing the pictures shown under Known For? They’re just a waste of space.
Photo of Stephen Schenck

Stephen Schenck

  • 2 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
It is unsupported, full of bugs, runs 24-36 hours behind the rest of the site, and lacks any of the features launched in the last 7+ years.
Col, thanks for responding. People don't like being told "no," so I don't envy your place here, breaking the news to a group of users with very strong feelings about how they'd like to access and interact with your website.

From this and other changes, it's clear that the site's management has a different vision for what using IMDb should be, and we just need to accept that. I bet most of us groan about it for a little, but then ultimately keep right on using, because we still really value it as a resource.

But there's an implication I get from your response that there's something wrong with the old reference view. It doesn't matter if it gets its info a little later, or it can't do much more than link pages of TV and movies to the people who made them. The reference view is so beloved because it prioritized information.

There's a density of movie data there that the new view can't touch; what takes two pages in the reference view renders as three pages with the modern layout.

But while that's all great for looking up movie stuff, it's also not full of videos and space for unrelated IMDb content. Call me paranoid, but I get the feeling that's the real move behind this change.

I just feel like the "reference view is broken and useless" explanation doesn't hold water. Rendering a page slightly differently is not a big problem. But if you don't want to do it, you're not going to do it.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7287 Posts
  • 9524 Reply Likes
At last, Col Needham has revealed the "deadline" for this stuff.
Photo of Terence Towles Canote

Terence Towles Canote

  • 6 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Personally, I much preferred IMDB's old  reference view and have always used it. It is much easier to use, much easier on the eyes, and all around superior in my opinion. Being forced to use the new layout will make research much, much more difficult! My suggestion to IMDB would be to develop a new layout that looks more like the old reference view and to drop the 2010 layout entirely.
Photo of Charles Trotter

Charles Trotter

  • 33 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
There's no reason they can't create a layout that looks like the old reference view using the new software. None whatsoever. The majority (if not all) of users and contributors want the reference view and hate the new layout. All IMDb techs have to do is redesign the layout so it looks and works more like the old reference view, but it seems they either don't want to put in the effort or they prefer the new style themselves. Either way, it seems to me that they just don't care what we want.
Photo of Sam Borowski

Sam Borowski

  • 5 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes

Charles, excellent point. As Filmmakers, Community Members and most of all, Customers, you think IMDb would hear us on this. I hate the new view, which was forced on me yesterday. I thought I somehow logged out. Not sure why they just don't fix it. IMDb, which is owned by Amazon, which also owns Withoutabox (which I MUCH PREFER to Film Freeway. WAB lets a Filmmaker list much more information.) and CreateSpace has a HUGE HOLD on the film community. WHY NOT keep us HAPPY? They only stand to make MORE MONEY, which is COOL if they give us what we want. ;)


Photo of Brian Handscomb

Brian Handscomb

  • 4 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Just spotted the "name" page thing - initially thought I'd logged out somehow, made doubly sure was logged in, then thought maybe the way I'd got to the page made a difference, all to no avail...

The main reason I login is explicitly to get to the so called reference views as the "new" version is total information overload and I think hard to quickly find the information you want... It's like a magazine when what I'm looking for is encyclopaedia...

It is sad to see the best (IMHO) views are being closed down...
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7287 Posts
  • 9524 Reply Likes
That information overload, IKR.
Photo of MADJiK

MADJiK

  • 10 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
«We expected this agreement to last a year at most,»

That's not what you said at this time!


The problems with your "new" design is that it's heavy, slow, not clear... all that was said in 2010 and it's still true.

That's why we were so numerous to still use old design and say the same again here.
Please give us back a clear design!
Photo of Greg Helton

Greg Helton

  • 1 Post
  • 4 Reply Likes
It is unsupported, full of bugs
Don't care. Didn't bother me.
runs 24-36 hours behind the rest of the site,
When I'm looking up a 50-year-old cast list of the Fugitive, being 24-36 hours behind is okay.

and lacks any of the features launched in the last 7+ years.
There've been new features?!  No offense to your developers, but I didn't know about them, didn't need them, don't care.  The classic view wasn't broken.  Or, it was according to you, but nobody cared.
Photo of Jason Seaver

Jason Seaver

  • 2 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I've been trying to use the new non-reference view for the past week and it's maddening, though two seemingly small changes could close 75% of the gap:

(1) Restore the AKAs to the titles.  I'm often looking up foreign films, and it is very useful to see both the original and English-language titles.

(2) Persist the page's current state somehow.  When I go to look up Johnnie To, for instance, his "Producer" credits are expanded.  I want the "Director" ones, but when I expand that, follow a link, and then hit "back", "Director" is again minimized and I have to expand it again, scroll down, maybe lose my place.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7287 Posts
  • 9524 Reply Likes
"Persist the page's current state somehow." That's tricky, beware.
Photo of Jason Seaver

Jason Seaver

  • 2 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I'm aware, and my first choice would be just having everything listed on a plain white background without a lot of widgets that need to be kept track of, as it would for many of the people posting here.  But, if this is how it's going to be(*), then I think it's a reasonable request.

(*) I'm not sure why IMDb's design philosophy seems to be "show less information at once and bury it under more layers";  what are people using it for if not trying to find information about movies/TV quickly?
Photo of RW

RW

  • 11 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
(1) Restore the AKAs to the titles.  I'm often looking up foreign films, and it is very useful to see both the original and English-language titles.
I mentioned this before as well, and it's a real problem with the current design.  I can't tell you how many times since the change that I can't seem to find a movie that I know exists only to have to site search for it to figure out what AKA it's listed under.
Photo of Grégory Alexandre

Grégory Alexandre

  • 16 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
This is just breaking my heart. Col, you have to be aware of that (not that my heart is broken, but that many other IMDb users/contributors hearts will be broken, and that's a lot of broken hearts !). The old display was easy, clear, I got so used to it in almost 20 years, it was just familiar. Now it's gone... I know there has been a battle over it 7 years ago and that we old-timers managed to have the old set up remain. Somehow I thought it would last forever. Nothing does... as it seems. It's like a breakup with someone. Sorry to get melodramatic over this matter but this really is a matter to me. I'm now just wondering how my "relationship" to Imdb will be affected, if I'll keep on wanting to work on it as much as I did. We'll see.
Photo of Jo Jesua

Jo Jesua

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Totally agree with Grégory
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4826 Reply Likes
If it helps any, we wrote this on another thread recently ...
Nothing has changed in the fundamentals of what is in the Contributors' Charter @ https://contribute.imdb.com/charter nor what we are doing and what we are about in the help section (and history and press room) @ https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/general-information/what-is-imdb/G836CY29Z4SGNMK5 -- the changes allow us to do all of these things better and faster. 
Photo of Grégory Alexandre

Grégory Alexandre

  • 16 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Thanks Col. I guess it's not helping much, but thanks anyway. I'm mourning the loss of something good-looking and sharp in favor of something ugly and uncomfortable to watch and use, whichever way I look at it. They always say "yeah sure, they'll be crying for a few days but they'll get used to anything". My question is just "was it an absolute necessity to shut down the old display ? Was IMDb losing money over it ?"
Photo of Kevin Howard

Kevin Howard

  • 3 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Thanks Gregory. Couldn't have put it much better myself. Unfortunately I can't find a view that I'd want to share with anyone, or use and update myself. This is a huge step in reverse for IMDB users. What a shame that our prefferences are being ignored.
Photo of Kevin Howard

Kevin Howard

  • 3 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Also, "Known for" has to be selectable  by the users or gone from the profile view.
Photo of Alan

Alan

  • 8 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
Yet more deterioration of service. First episode casts now this.
You seem determined to ruin this site.
The "modern" view is nowhere near as good.

How for example do you show all job sections by default. Or do you really have to press the "Show All" button every time you look at an actor's name? I can't see anything in the site preferences to control this.
Photo of michael kirby

michael kirby

  • 3 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I am also extremely disappointed. One click and I could see all the actor's credits on one screen.
 
Now, I have to click on about 7 screens to see all the relevant data.

The average Joe who is uninterested in sections such as soundtrack and archive may not care..

However for the concerning viewer, (some of which saw a need to create this website), it certainly appears a backward step.

And something which technology surely could overcome.the bugs.

These are the types of things which make this website superior to other wannabes.
Photo of michael kirby

michael kirby

  • 3 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
On a further note, by removing the old reference view, I have now found they have taken away episode numbers of tv series.

Instead of 40 of 165 you only get Season 2 Episode 1 (165 episodes).

So if you want to work out the episode number, you have to open the episode lists and calculate.

Absolutely frustrating for when you're trying to work out episode numbers for Series 14 of a show like I am at present.
Photo of John Seal

John Seal

  • 12 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Indeed. I also discovered this today...another frustrating change. 
Photo of plur62

plur62

  • 20 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
Why you doing this to us, Col?

Another extremely disappointed user and contributor.
(Edited)
Photo of moodri

moodri

  • 72 Posts
  • 79 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Name Pages Show "New" Format; Not My Preference.

This morning, name pages are showing what is probably the current, nonreference view. I say 'probably', because I have had my general site preferences set to reference view since the changeover started, and I never see the current view. How can I get the reference view back?
Photo of RW

RW

  • 11 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
The reason we use reference view isn't because it looks like the old site, it's because it's significantly more useful.  I thought the reason it was called "reference" was it was intentionally supposed to be more database or library-like for those of us who work professionally in the industry and related fields and need easy access to all of the actual information at a glance.

If I upgrade to IMDb Pro will I then have access to reference view again?

Please don't remove the combined view from movies or that would be catastrophic for a lot of people I work with.  Thank you.
Photo of Charles Trotter

Charles Trotter

  • 33 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
So it seems IMDb has decided to force the "new" page layout on us despite the fact that nearly everyone prefers the old reference view. This would enrage me if I didn't see it coming a mile away. The folks at IMDb have done nothing to improve the site over the years; they've only made it worse by removing useful features and making the site more grotesque and harder to navigate. They completely disregard input from their users and contributors and instead just implement every unnecessary, unwanted and unsightly alteration they can think of, and the site suffers because of it. I'm sick and tired of it, to be frank, and if the reference view really is gone for good then you can count me out as a regular visitor. I cannot use this site if I have to look at that god-awful layout. IMDb, please, don't take away the reference view option. You need to listen to your users and contributors and LEAVE. SH*T. ALONE. You are only making things worse for us and for the site. Please stop.
Photo of Henrietta Dooley

Henrietta Dooley

  • 3 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
If you have to take reference view offline for a little while while you update the software that runs it, fine. But I think you should seriously reconsider removing it altogether. Is there no way to build the site in the reference view with the new technology? I know everyone says this but there's truly no reason for me to ever use this site if I can't see reference view. Please listen to all of us. Keep the new version the default but give us an option, please.
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6915 Posts
  • 8562 Reply Likes
If there will be a 'combined' title page setting, maybe there could also be an alternative name page view to see the full filmography and omit other page elements.
Photo of James Lane

James Lane

  • 2 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
This is a deplorable decision.

I’m not wasting time arguing about it. Because I can see that there’s no discussion to be had.

It's apparent – by the extremely limited amount of people (8 at this point) showing concern about this – that Imdb will consider the “problem” irrelevant. Hence, their minds are not going to change over any argument, no matter how reasonable.

Been a regular, everyday user for 17 years. I guess loyalty counts for nothing?

I'm out. Bye.
Photo of Charles Trotter

Charles Trotter

  • 33 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
Exactly. They couldn't give less of a sh*t about us, and make no mistake, we do represent the majority; we're just the only ones who bother to seek out this forum and comment. And they've pretty much just given us the middle finger by going ahead and removing the reference view entirely; we can't even access it manually any more. That's their answer right there. So you're right, no point in arguing. They've made their decision and whether users and visitors are happy or not is irrelevant. I will continue to update the IMDb lists I'm currently working on, but once I'm done with those, I'm pretty much done with this site as well.

It really is a shame. I've been a frequent visitor for over 20 years and a registered user for 16, and have watched in vexation and disappointment as the site's quality and accessibility drastically diminished the pleas and suggestions of users and contributors are ignored. It used to be my favorite site, but now it's just a mess -- one the powers that be will have to clean up if they want us to continue visiting.
Photo of RW

RW

  • 11 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
It took me forever to even find this forum so I could make my comment above.  After skimming through the fairly useless help pages looking for an e-mail contact link I finally stumbled on this and wasn't even sure it was real considering it's on an entirely different website.  After which, by the way, I had to create an completely new account because it's not linked to my IMDb ID.  All told, just to find a place where it was being discussed probably took me 20 minutes, and I doubt most people would go through that effort, even if they were genuinely angry.

When my work colleagues this morning told me that IMDb had removed the reference view I laughed and said that was impossible.  You couldn't believe the look of shock on my face when I tried my own account and saw it was true.

I know IMDb doesn't have a legal or financial obligation here, but if they're going to take on the mantle of being the gatekeepers to all information about TV and movies then I would say they have an ethical responsibility to at least have the option to deliver that information in a way that's actually usable.

First and foremost IMDb is a tool, and let's be real, a database of information (IMDb anyone?).  And then, somewhere way down the list, it's an entertainment site.  Somewhere along the way IMDb seems to have forgotten itself. 

Pro Tip IMDb Overlords: There's thousands of wannabe entertainment websites, but there's only one true Internet Movie Database
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
I've been using IMDB for a long time but I'm using it much less these days after the message boards were removed. Getting rid of the reference view may just be the last straw for many people. I know it is for me. I may end up having to use IMDB in the future but it will only be after exhausting all other sources if information on the internet.
Photo of vhavnal

vhavnal

  • 390 Posts
  • 296 Reply Likes
Another good feature IMDb just killed.. Congrats ...it looks like the only time i post here is when IMDb destroys a good feature..reference view/combined view was very useful to us "contributors", now updating will be harder as we had scripts that worked perfectly for reference views ....*sigh* ...can't wait for the next good thing they destroy ...probably Title reference view.......R.I.P Names Ref/Combined view.
(Edited)
Photo of Robin Bonathan

Robin Bonathan

  • 30 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled hate the new look on destop.

Not a fan of the new destop look.
Its too compact.
loss of detail etc.

Might have been fine on a tablet but not a desktop
imdb is going down. like myspace years ago. stupid changes for nothing.
Photo of Adam F.

Adam F.

  • 1 Post
  • 5 Reply Likes
Just wanted to throw in my $0.02 that I MUCH prefer the older "reference view".  The new look is garish and seems solely designed to be looked at from a mobile device.  I get that a lot of people want that look, and it doesn't seem significantly difficult to provide users options for what look they prefer.  
Photo of rpupkin

rpupkin

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
yet another platform consolidation "improvement" catering to mobile that leaves desktop/laptop users in the dust
(Edited)
Photo of rpupkin

rpupkin

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
i just checked my IMDb profile.  i've been a member since June 2000.  i've contributed corrections & additions (mostly external reviews) in the hundreds.  i won't be contributing an more.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7287 Posts
  • 9524 Reply Likes
Thanks for the corrections and additions, rpupkin. And assuming you're not bluffing about ceasing, farewell.
Photo of Sam Borowski

Sam Borowski

  • 5 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Did IMDb update their site preferences? I am now unable to view it the old way?.

I used to be able to view my - and other - IMDb pages the old way. The way the filmography - and page - used to appear. But today - 12/14/17 - I noticed I can't do that anymore. Even after I click reference view, it doesn't change the way my - other - pages appear. Is this some sort of permanent change IMDb made? And, we can no longer view the page the way it appeared years ago, which I always preferred. Can someone help me?
Photo of Mikko

Mikko

  • 1 Post
  • 4 Reply Likes

The lack of AKA titles in filmography pages is a major problem for me. About 50% of the time I know a film by its original title (e.g. Japanese, English) , and about 50% of the time by the English title only (e.g. Chinese, Korean movies). No matter whether I choose "original" or "English" as the title display language, half of the time I won't recognize the titles on the filmography pages, and I need to check each film page to learn what film it is... Which takes so much time. Couldn't we please have the AKAs back? At least an option to view titles in both "original" and "user selected" languages at the same time?

Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4826 Reply Likes
This is good feedback to help guide where we go with this, thanks. 
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3805 Posts
  • 3705 Reply Likes

Mikko
The lack of AKA titles in filmography pages is a major problem for me
- - -

Col Needham, Official Rep
This is good feedback to help guide where we go with this, thanks.
- - -

Maybe add to

https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general

[__] Hide AKA titles


Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7292 Posts
  • 9536 Reply Likes
ACT_1, hell yeah.
Photo of RW

RW

  • 11 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
I'll second the AKAs missing.  It's a real issue, and not even for obscure stuff.  I mean if you go to Penelope Cruz's page where's Abre los ojos?  That's a reasonably popular movie with a Spanish title and you can't find it scrolling and you can't find it using a webpage text search, you can only find it if you already know that the English translated title is Open Your Eyes.  There's about a million examples of that obviously.

Similar to this, the Actor/Actress Alternate Names used to be at the top under their name, and now they're buried at the bottom of the page in the Biography section, but mysteriously, if you click the Biography button at the top and go to the Biography page there's no Alternate Names.  The Alternate Names/AKAs need to be at the top underneath their main IMDb name as that's an extremely important piece of information that if you don't have immediate access to you're going to end up potentially linking people improperly or creating new entries unnecessarily.
Photo of cyber_turnip

cyber_turnip

  • 19 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
I knew this day would come, but I'm very sad. The classic version of the site is so much better for a variety of reasons that I won't go into. I'm a heavy IMDb user and I very, very rarely encountered bugs or slow speeds on the system.
Photo of Tom Patten

Tom Patten

  • 6 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I've seen so many websites follow the same fate by starting off strong and then going downhill a few years down the line, thinking simplicity and catering to casual visitors is a step forward. As a result, the desktop site suffers because mobile phone apps can't show the same amount of information. They change the skins and the features of the site completely and assume people will just get over it. It's a load of crap!
Photo of herveschneid

herveschneid

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thank you Murphy, I completely agree with you and all the disappointed users!
This is a ridiculous decision.

"You [could have] count[ed] [...] Active Members with [x] Show reference view ([classic] title/name page layout) ...""we DO represent the majority; we're just the only ones who bother to seek out this forum and comment"
"just a waste of space"
"[classic] display was easy, clear"
"the loss of something good-looking and sharp in favor of something ugly and uncomfortable to watch and use"
"Yet more deterioration of service"
"You seem determined to ruin this site"
"The 'modern' view is nowhere near as good"
"extremely disappointed"
"have to click on about 7 screens to see all the relevant data"
"for the concerning viewer [...] it certainly appears a backward step"
"The reason we use reference view isn't because it looks like the old site, it's because it's significantly more useful"
"IMDb has decided to force the 'new' page layout on us despite the fact that nearly everyone prefers the old reference view"
"they've pretty much just given us the middle finger by going ahead and removing the reference view entirely"
"IMDb [has] done nothing to improve the site over the years"
"only made it worse by removing useful features and making the site more grotesque and harder to navigate"
"watched in vexation and disappointment as the site's quality and accessibility drastically diminished the pleas and suggestions of users and contributors are ignored"
"completely disregard input from their users and contributors"
"instead just implement every unnecessary, unwanted and unsightly alteration they can think of"
"sick and tired of it"
"extremely disappointed user and contributor"
"cannot use this site if I have to look at that god-awful layout"
"You are only making things worse for us and for the site. Please stop."
"Is there no way to build the site in the reference view with the new technology?"
"a deplorable decision"
"I can see that there’s no discussion to be had"
"their minds are not going to change over any argument, no matter how reasonable"
"whether users and visitors are happy or not is irrelevant"
"[Having] been a regular, everyday user for 17 years, I guess loyalty counts for nothing?"
"I've been a frequent visitor for over 20 years and a registered user for 16"  <-- over 20/17 years in my case! Hi, brother :)
"It used to be my favorite site, but now it's just a mess"
Photo of Nicolai Laros

Nicolai Laros

  • 1 Post
  • 5 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New Layout!!!! Why, why, why!!!.

What the hack is going on Imdb? Why can't we see all the infos about movies as for example "alternate version" etc. anymore!!! I hardly needed all this stuff! Wasn't this new outfit supposed to be better and help us!
Photo of Quaraxkad

Quaraxkad

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
I'm just seeing this new layout, or rather the lack of the old layout, today. And I thought I was the only one who would miss it. I'm glad to see that's not the case. The current layout is absurd and unusable. It follows the current design trend of "more wasted space, less useful information". I don't know what more there is to say that hasn't been mentioned in this thread already. If the old /reference layout still works, just re-enable it. If it doesn't, there's absolutely no reason why just one lone designer couldn't whip up a new version that matches the old format in appearance in a few hours works.

I can only hope they don't do the same to /combined, that would be an even bigger failure.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7290 Posts
  • 9534 Reply Likes
Title Combined View is not going away exactly, but it will be replaced by a variant supported by the new software platform. It's hard to explain what it will look like, using words. We might not be pleased, though.
Photo of Dave

Dave

  • 1 Post
  • 8 Reply Likes
Well, I had to create an account to add my voice to the chorus here. Many others have already made much better worded arguments as to why reference view is better than the bloated "new" view, so I'll just say I agree with them 100%. The forums are gone, episodes cast isn't working, and now reference view is on the way out. IMDb just keeps getting less & less useful. I hate to sound like the guy who says things like  "remember when MTV played music videos?", but there's a reason people say that! Change does not necessarily mean progress! Please keep some form of reference view!
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7287 Posts
  • 9524 Reply Likes

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.