Revamped Title Information Page

[emtilt]

I'm kinda confused by the use of color on the ratings (i.e., how a numeric rating can be green/yellow/red in the ratings and review section). It seems like nearly everything is dark green for me on the new design but not the old design. For example, on the Three Thousand Years of Longing page, there's an average percentile of 44.55% from 440 total ratings. Only the bottom ten of these (percentiles zero through four) show up as yellow or red. Anything else is green. This doesn't occur on the old page for me, and seems like a misleading use of color that might be a bug?

[Ununnilium]

For the life of me I can't figure out how to add a film to a collection from its Collections page.

[BadCosmonaut]

For the life of me I can't figure out how to add a film to a collection from its Collections page.

There's a button right under the poster.

[Moribunny]

I’d like to share some facts and some background. Firstly, the idea that we’re not listening to user input is patently false (and honestly a little hurtful).

Let me start by absolutely concurring with that. I don't often comment on changes, but I have made a comment in the past which convinced you to make an adjustment to the site, and I am grateful and always impressed by your attention to your users.

I'd also like to say that I don't expect special treatment just because I've been using the site for 17 years - every internet service thrives on attracting new users and I don't fault you one bit for wishing to attract those and cater to their expectations.

That said,

only 4.09% have switched back to the old version.

That is likely because most users haven't noticed that button (I haven't until someone mentioned it right here on the thread, and so I immediately pressed it), or haven't been back to the site since the change or for long enough to bother looking.

Users who aren’t already accustomed to the old version of the Title Information Page responded massively better to the new one.

That is likely because they're judging the book by its cover - the new version may seem more familiar to them if they use other sites, but since they haven't actually experienced USING the old version over time, they can't see how much more navigable and usable it is.

Bugs always pop up (already there's been a new one reported on the Legacy version), and permanently supporting two separate versions isn't something we can do.

I somehow doubt that the legacy version bugs are that numerous at this point in time, unless they have to do with new changes to the legacy version.

What I wish you would take away from this thread, or at least my concerns, is that it's not about nostalgic people dreading progress and the unfamiliar. It's that the new UI is honestly regressive. It makes the user work more and makes information less accessible. And I have a sneaking suspicion that forcing us to click so many more clicks than before, has to do with the monetization of click-traffic. There is no other logical reason to force me to click and click and click again every time I want to see a different bit of information about the same title.

I wouldn't even mind if you changed things around visually, just so long as all the information is back on the same page, instead of spread out to different ones. And less spaced out so I don't hurt my finger scrolling all the time. Using your site shouldn't be a tedious chore.

[gogolit]

What I wish you would take away from this thread, or at least my concerns, is that it's not about nostalgic people dreading progress and the unfamiliar. It's that the new UI is honestly regressive. It makes the user work more and makes information less accessible. And I have a sneaking suspicion that forcing us to click so many more clicks than before, has to do with the monetization of click-traffic. There is no other logical reason to force me to click and click and click again every time I want to see a different bit of information about the same title.

Yup. It comes down to what kind of website Criticker is. It's not a 'general interest' kind of website, for casual film fans passing through. It appeals squarely to film geeks & nerds who use the site for a specific function. Therefore its users appreciated the easy, straightforward old fashioned functionality of the site. Browsers who just want a quick snap of general information about a film can use imdb or google. They will never have any extra interest in cataloging and rating every film and TV show they've ever seen in their lives. It will always be fairly niche. The website surely needs to cater first to this user's needs and updates are welcome but should be continuing the raison d'etre of the website, even leaning more into it. The unique selling point is the rating system and accurate (if used correctly) predictions. I feel this one unique selling point has been minimised in the redesign, rather than making it even more central to your abilities.

[future42]

Part of what I love about Criticker his how consistent the site is. I don't want it to become a Letterboxd clone. So many times sites feel the need to rebrand or overhaul when its entirely unnecessary. I think what a lot of people want from Criticker is minor incremental improvements, the idea of a Criticker "total site rebranding" is concerning to me, and could potentially get me to switch to Letterboxd.

EDIT: one small actionable critique is we see less filmmakers at the top of the page. On the old Criticker design we can easily see writer and director at a glance, now it's only the director.

Another is the probable score thing is broken, though I'm sure others have reported that already.

The dev citing low amount of people switching back to the old version is disingenuous I feel, as people are more likely to stick to the path of least resistance. I don't think that's a helpful metric unless you are doing full A/B testing on the new vs old design.

[DSouza_Vasco]

I cant find the button "switch to old" in the mobile version.

[KasperL]

I cant find the button "switch to old" in the mobile version.

I believe adding ?mode=legacy to the url works.

[SinnerMa]

Not linking to any specific post in this thread....

Just wanted to say I much prefer the old look as it is compact and provides all I want to see... clarification on my viewing/usage - 100% PC user, all I look at is the specific movie page and (rarely) the forum (which I haven't gone to on "new"). Call me conservative but I strongly beleive in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and abhore tinkering to cater for/attract new viewers.

I switched immediately back to the former style once I saw (and looked at) the revamp - thanks for giving the option, the "now screen is simply too spread out. Hope the "old" continues to be supported forever. Yes I think I can tolerate the new look but it simply isn't as good IMO. Have not reviewed/added any films under the "new" screen so cannot comment on how that would be.

[mpowell]

Thanks all for these continued comments!

This is just a note to confirm that we are working on some updates that will address a lot of the concerns expressed in these posts. We ask for a bit of patience while we do this, but will be working as quickly as possible. Watch this space for more updates!