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.
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.
Posted 2 years ago
Col Needham, Official Rep
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
At last, Col Needham has revealed the "deadline" for this stuff.
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.
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.
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. ;)
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...
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...
That information overload, IKR.
«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!
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!
It is unsupported, full of bugsDon'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.
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.
(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.
"Persist the page's current state somehow." That's tricky, beware.
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?
(*) 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?
(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.
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.
Totally agree with Grégory
Col Needham, Official Rep
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.
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 ?"
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.
Also, "Known for" has to be selectable by the users or gone from the profile view.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. I also discovered this today...another frustrating change.
Peter, Champion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
yet another platform consolidation "improvement" catering to mobile that leaves desktop/laptop users in the dust
(Edited)
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.
Thanks for the corrections and additions, rpupkin. And assuming you're not bluffing about ceasing, farewell.
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?
Col Needham, Official Rep
This is good feedback to help guide where we go with this, thanks.
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
ACT_1, hell yeah.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I can only hope they don't do the same to /combined, that would be an even bigger failure.
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.
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!
