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 3 years ago
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!
