Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 20, 2006, 01:06 AM

I'm a big fan of IMDB, and it's my first source for movie information and trivia. My ONLY complaint is, it's UGLY. Someone needs to give it a major overhaul. It looks very "old slashdot" in my opinion.

Also, they could incorporate some newer technologies: RSS, etc. etc.

What sites do others here use?

SpaceMonkey · Aug 20, 2006, 01:26 AM

I hate that you have to register to even read their discussion forums.

hyteckit · Aug 20, 2006, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I hate that you have to register to even read their discussion forums.

Haha... yeah, that is stupid. Posting I would understand, but reading? Come on now!

mitchell_pgh · Aug 20, 2006, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Haha... yeah, that is stupid. Posting I would understand, but reading? Come on now!

I completely agree. They are shooting themselves in the foot by requiring a log in. They would probably get more people signing up if they let you read them.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Aug 20, 2006, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I hate that you have to register to even read their discussion forums.

Their site would crash under the load if they didn't have registration.

Agreed that their technology is so old. It's totally table based and they are still using this 1997 stuff for the navigation:

<map name="nav">
<area shape="rect" coords="1,14,56,44" href="/rg/nav-nowplaying/navbar/nowplaying/">
<area shape="rect" coords="57,14,122,44" href="/rg/nav-news/navbar/news/">
<area shape="rect" coords="122,14,175,44" href="/rg/nav-mymovies/navbar/mymovies/list">
<area shape="rect" coords="175,14,222,44" href="/rg/nav-recommends/navbar/recommends/">
<area shape="rect" coords="223,14,270,44" href="/rg/nav-imdbtv/navbar/sections/tv/">
<area shape="rect" coords="271,14,328,44" href="/rg/nav-boards/navbar/boards/">
<area shape="rect" coords="329,14,404,44" href="/rg/nav-showtimes/navbar/showtimes/">
<area shape="rect" coords="405,14,454,44" href="/rg/nav-gamebase/navbar/sections/games/">
<area shape="rect" coords="455,2,540,44" href="http://pro.imdb.com/r/imdb-nav/">
</map>

Ulrich Kinbote · Aug 20, 2006, 02:20 AM

I like text-dominant webpages when what you're there for is to read.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 20, 2006, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

I like text-dominant webpages when what you're there for is to read.

I think Rotten Tomatoes does a good job of balancing the text with the content.

I'm currently watching Red Dawn:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red_dawn/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

Rotten Tomatoes is so much cleaner... if you took that concept and make it even more refined (and less advertisement driven) I think you would have a winner.

abe · Aug 20, 2006, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I think Rotten Tomatoes does a good job of balancing the text with the content.

I'm currently watching Red Dawn:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red_dawn/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

Rotten Tomatoes is so much cleaner... if you took that concept and make it even more refined (and less advertisement driven) I think you would have a winner.

But you like IMDB better despite the fact that you much prefer Rotten Tomatoes' layout, graphics, UI and etc.? Which would be easier to do, incorporate RT's style into IMDB or IMDB's content into Rotten Tomatoes?

Obi Wan's Ghost · Aug 20, 2006, 05:48 AM

I prefer Rotten Tomatoeseses content and iMDB's layout. iMDB needs to adopt css and ajax and get rid of user ratings. What's the point of a movie's average rating if most of the votes are from celebrity fans who give high ratings to their fave star's sh!te movies? Rotten Tomatoes emphasis is on professional critics and that makes it better for reading about a movie.

abe · Aug 20, 2006, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

I prefer Rotten Tomatoeseses content and iMDB's layout. iMDB needs to adopt css and ajax and get rid of user ratings. What's the point of a movie's average rating if most of the votes are from celebrity fans who give high ratings to their fave star's sh!te movies? Rotten Tomatoes emphasis is on professional critics and that makes it better for reading about a movie.

I find that when there are a ton of user ratings on IMDB they tend to be generally reliable in prevnting my wasting my time on a film (if I bother to check it first) and when the user reviews say a film is crummy I think to myself, "oh, well maybe THIS time they are wrong." Haha!

They're usually not far off when there's about 100 or so.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 20, 2006, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by abe

But you like IMDB better despite the fact that you much prefer Rotten Tomatoes' layout, graphics, UI and etc.? Which would be easier to do, incorporate RT's style into IMDB or IMDB's content into Rotten Tomatoes?

I go to IMDB because I fee the information is much more complete. Even rather obscure movies will have a few reviews from people of all walks of life. I don't mind the user reviews from random people. Naturally the numbers rise to the top (how many people search for a film that they hate sot hat they can write a bad review?).

Also, I feel RT is too ad heavy...

Mithras · Aug 20, 2006, 12:14 PM

Mainly I hate that RottenTomatoes is just about impossible to search. I just use Google with site:rottentomatoes.com, because entering anything into the RT search box returns a "sorry! too many results!" page.

Aug 20, 2006, 12:18 PM

IMDB's layout works. Who cares if it's old and doesn't have the latest technology? New technology often doesn't make a site easier to navigate, it just makes it take longer to load.

I say leave it as is, unless someone can demonstrate how new technology would make it easier to use.

Obi Wan's Ghost · 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by hayesk

IMDB's layout works. Who cares if it's old and doesn't have the latest technology? New technology often doesn't make a site easier to navigate, it just makes it take longer to load.

I say leave it as is, unless someone can demonstrate how new technology would make it easier to use.

A css layout loads faster than a table based one. Ajax means less page reloads and refreshes.

I am one of few people here beta testing iPod Hub, the site started by two ex MacNNers who hated MacNNs high graphics layout, slow scrolling (now on all of NN's sister sites) and those Intellitxt underlines, and this is what to expect from their design:

(from the homepage right now)

That would be perfect for the IMDB too. It has to happen sooner or later.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 20, 2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

Mainly I hate that RottenTomatoes is just about impossible to search. I just use Google with site:rottentomatoes.com, because entering anything into the RT search box returns a "sorry! too many results!" page.

I couldn't agree more. I do the same google search within the site to find movies (which is a shame).

Originally Posted by hayesk

IMDB's layout works. Who cares if it's old and doesn't have the latest technology? New technology often doesn't make a site easier to navigate, it just makes it take longer to load.

I say leave it as is, unless someone can demonstrate how new technology would make it easier to use.

I guess, it's just unfortunate that such a fantastic site looks so... well, not fantastic. I also think the design could be tightened up a bit. And the CSS thing could be fantastic if you really want updates to an upcoming movie. Some movies on IMDB are years ahead of launch... and are formulating actors. It would be nice to have an update once some additional information is finalized.

I think it could simply be better. It's always sad when I see an amazing site that isn't using newer standards. I don't think they have to be cutting edge, but just modern.

http://www.netflix.com/ is very modern... I'd be happy if it was somewhere between the two.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Aug 20, 2006, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

http://www.netflix.com/ is very modern... I'd be happy if it was somewhere between the two.

Netflix is totally table based and I can't fathom why. The site would shave two thirds of its code moving to CSS.

Salty · Aug 20, 2006, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Netflix is totally table based and I can't fathom why. The site would shave two thirds of its code moving to CSS.

Just checked out the netflix page... doesn't seem to use much code. I imagine they don't really need to shave off much. I mean what they've got like one table with a couple cells. I've worked on far more complex table based layouts.

besson3c · Aug 20, 2006, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

Just checked out the netflix page... doesn't seem to use much code. I imagine they don't really need to shave off much. I mean what they've got like one table with a couple cells. I've worked on far more complex table based layouts.

The more they can shave off, the lower their bandwidth costs are. It all adds up.

Also, as far as Ajax goes, it's obviously great technology, but it can also increase the load on the server by increasing the number of DB calls it makes. Since IMDB is obviously a pretty old site, it might also be running on older hardware that would not be up to this increased demand... just a thought.

Scalability is a very big issue for high traffic servers.

Kenneth · Aug 20, 2006, 11:47 PM

K.I.S.S.?

Pretty much I check imdb everyday. I used to goto bugmenot to obtain a username/password. However, I finally registered for an account with my junk email address.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 21, 2006, 12:32 AM

I accept that I'm probably making a big deal out of nothing, I think I just like the site so much (content wise) that I wish a little energy was spent updating the overall look/feel. I'm not saying it has to be completely Web 2.0+, but just a nice bump to bring it into the early 2000s.

I also accept scalability is a big issue. The current IMDB looks like it has a small footprint... which is probably great for their servers. I just hate to think that some users might not bother with IMDB because of the overall look.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Aug 21, 2006, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Just checked out the netflix page... doesn't seem to use much code. I imagine they don't really need to shave off much. I mean what they've got like one table with a couple cells. I've worked on far more complex table based layouts.

The source code reveals seven tables on Netflix's homepage where there isn't even the need for one table. It's damn bad coding.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Aug 21, 2006, 06:10 AM

How weird is that? Netflix moved to a new layout while this debate was going on

besson3c · Aug 21, 2006, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I accept that I'm probably making a big deal out of nothing, I think I just like the site so much (content wise) that I wish a little energy was spent updating the overall look/feel. I'm not saying it has to be completely Web 2.0+, but just a nice bump to bring it into the early 2000s.

I also accept scalability is a big issue. The current IMDB looks like it has a small footprint... which is probably great for their servers. I just hate to think that some users might not bother with IMDB because of the overall look.

My remarks about scalability were only in regards to Ajax. Moving over to a more CSS based setup would probably actually provide them with a smaller footprint, as each page would be smaller in size.

starman · Aug 21, 2006, 08:34 AM

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 21, 2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by starman

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I guess I'm not looking for sweeping changes... but a little update from time to time would be nice.