They’re putting miniscule thumbnail pics on every actor possible in their listings. It’s ugly, uses bandwidth and just plain silly.
It’s just silly - I can’t even identifiy the actors the pictures are so small (maybe I could, but it’s an info page! I’m not going to stare intently at tiny pics!)
I don’t like how they organize TV episodes so it’s harder to distinguish between a regular cast member and someone who’s just made a handfull of appearances.
I also think it’s a little silly that you can rate individual episodes, but I particularly don’t like that when you sort by votes or ratings, the results are cluttered by all those individual episode counts.
It all seems like a bit of overkill (w/the OP included).
They’re not meant to be so small; that’s just Tom Cruise.
I agree it’s a waste of bandwidth in most cases. They’d be better off using a generic camera icon to indicate photos are available if you want to click the link to them.
I agree that the thumbnails are worthless. Maybe they’re good if you’re running at 800x600.
Another change is a mini-gallery for each person entry, which I actually kinda like.
I agree. baaaaaah
It’s similar too when allmusic.com changed their design. Now you have to click a tab, to get to the discography, and you get annoying album cover pop-ups when you try to click on an album. Stupid fancy design. I think that eventually I will only use wikipedia, for this reason.
They’re more like icons than thubnails so you can quickly figure out who the actor was in case you don’t remember the characters name.
Apparently it doesn’t offend me as much as it does other people.
I hope they make it a feature that can be turned off.
This is a great idea.
One of the big uses of IMDB is to go to a movie that you saw a guy in who you liked, but guess what – you DON’T KNOW HIS NAME.
You know he’s not the guy with lead billing. But after that, you’re stuck with. . .
“oh, maybe it’s this actor John Doe.” clicks on john doe. Nope.
“ok, then it’s got to be john smith” clicks on john smith. Nope.
“ok, then it’s got to be joe smith” clicks on joe smith. Nope.
talk about a waste of bandwith.
Ah-hah! No wonder I can’t get on that frickin’ website any more. I was trying all yesterday, but my browser kept crashing.
Yeah, I have to say I really like the new feature too. Even if the thumbnails are small, you can at least see who they do have photos of. Previously you had to click on the actor’s name just to see whether there was a photo posted or not.
I’m usually much more interested in seeing photos of minor actors that have caught my attention so I can figure out who they are. I already know who the big stars are and what they look like. One of IMDB’s big drawbacks is how few of the minor actors have photos posted.
I don’t like the format, but the idea is good. I’d say, perhaps, if you roll over the name a small (not that small, though) picture pops up, or something. Either way it should be an option that can be turned off.
Another issue is the size of the faces. For example, Lady in the Water. Paul Giamatti’s picture is a good headshot, and it isn’t all that recognizable. Bryce Dallas Howard’s is a chest-up shot that is completely useless at such a small size.
IMO a mouseover pic would be much better.
I’m actually genuinely surprised that imdb hasn’t gone to a subscription service for nearly all of its data.
Since employees of IMDb don’t actually provide the data, pictures, etc. I don’t think they would be successful doing this. Wikipedia or a similar Wikimovie or something would quickly take its place.
Good point. They do have a “professional service”, though, don’t they?