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: No longer relevant
The new Emoticons are terrible!!! They do a terrible job of conveying emotion. The sad2 icon was the best with tears flowing everywhere. And the mad icon with the little guy jumping up and down was also great. The gun shooting icons, the angry, happy, biggrin & cheers icon were great!! These are terrible!! Please go back to the old ones. PLEASE!!
Posted 6 years ago
LuvsToResearch, Champion
Please see IMDb's Information Board post for full explanation: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/n...
That thread is locked now.
I don't mind additions, but shutting down the old ones is just silly. They announced "SUPPORT" for the new ones, that suggests an addition, not a replacement. And the general gist of the thread was that everybody hates them, so I just don't get the stubbornness about reactivating the old ones. That way everybody will be happy.
I don't mind additions, but shutting down the old ones is just silly. They announced "SUPPORT" for the new ones, that suggests an addition, not a replacement. And the general gist of the thread was that everybody hates them, so I just don't get the stubbornness about reactivating the old ones. That way everybody will be happy.
Yeah, funny how one of the IMDb admins said "With the interest split so evenly basically we'd be annoying one user for every user we'd please. That's not a recipe for success" regarding splitting the Politics board into two... But a 99 to 1 interest AGAINST emoji apparently is a recipe for success. [none]
Yeah, I just noticed this. I had the [fight2] emoticon nestled between a quote, it looked like: "Welcome to the middle of nowhere-[fight2]-the center of everywhere."
Now it just looks like a word and a number bunched together between brackets. Thanks, IMDb. Because I enjoy having badass emoticons replaced by cutesy, ugly crap-looking smiley faces.
Now it just looks like a word and a number bunched together between brackets. Thanks, IMDb. Because I enjoy having badass emoticons replaced by cutesy, ugly crap-looking smiley faces.
The new emoticons look like a set of stickers for toddlers.
What makes me laugh is no one wanted this NO ONE, and the admins are protecting this crappy edition like it's a made man in the mafia by instalocking the thread because people think it sucks.
Just do yourselves a favor IMDB: listen to your users for once.
Without them, your site is NOTHING. Act like it.
Just do yourselves a favor IMDB: listen to your users for once.
Without them, your site is NOTHING. Act like it.
Why can't we keep the old ones? I liked the old emoticons!
We liked them too, but we think the new ones are better. Rather than trying to go our own way with emoticons, we decided to join the rest of the world and benefit from the increasing native support in operating systems and browsers.
The new ones are NOT better. They're too big, and too bulky, and FUGLY!!!
Further, it explains a LOT that they're using Google emoticons now. Google is probably paying IMDB to use them. Google is sticking their fingers into too many cookie jars lately, and RUINING whatever they touch!
And that business about a global announcement? WHERE? I never saw one! I simply clicked on emoticons yesterday and thought my system had been hacked when I saw the junky emoticons where the old, cool ANIMATED ones had been!
Once again, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT!!!
In addition, it amazes me that in over FORTY pages of that thread, everyone is complaining about the new emoticons, and yet the ONE admin who does show his face in that thread, just continues to essentially say, "Well, we know that NINETY-NINE POINT NINE PERCENT of you hate the new emoticons, but we have that POINT ZERO-ONE PERCENT who do like the new emoticons, so we're just going to go with that point zero-one percent who does, and dismantle the more popular old-style emoticons and the rest of you will just have to swallow the bs we're trying to sell you here."
(Edited)
I'd get a lot more satisfaction if the entire board system were moved here. We don't have any emoticons here unfortunately.
Actually we do, since you can drop an image into a post.
That's not ever likely to happen on the IMDb boards though, is it?
Actually we do, since you can drop an image into a post. That's not ever likely to happen on the IMDb boards though, is it?After posting this last night, I thought, "wouldn't it be great to start a campaign on GetSatisfaction.com to use only the old emoticons available here:"
Planet Smilies
To do it effectively, open the site in another window so you can position it next to this window. Just drag and drop the smilies into your post. The smilies can also be dragged and dropped within this page as I did with these.
Planet Smilies
To do it effectively, open the site in another window so you can position it next to this window. Just drag and drop the smilies into your post. The smilies can also be dragged and dropped within this page as I did with these.
"Why can't we keep the old ones? I liked the old emoticons!
We liked them too, but we think the new ones are better. Rather than trying to go our own way with emoticons, we decided to join the rest of the world and benefit from the increasing native support in operating systems and browsers"
I find this comment extremely interesting. Their interested in "joining the rest of the world" when it comes to implementing these crappy emoticons, but not when adding features like insert image that virtually EVERY FORUM ON THE WEB HAS EXCEPT IMDB.
The fact they would say something like that is quite laughable, especially seeing that even the feedback forum has it.
We liked them too, but we think the new ones are better. Rather than trying to go our own way with emoticons, we decided to join the rest of the world and benefit from the increasing native support in operating systems and browsers"
I find this comment extremely interesting. Their interested in "joining the rest of the world" when it comes to implementing these crappy emoticons, but not when adding features like insert image that virtually EVERY FORUM ON THE WEB HAS EXCEPT IMDB.
The fact they would say something like that is quite laughable, especially seeing that even the feedback forum has it.
IMDb should be embarrassed that their feedback site is years ahead of the system we troubleshoot here.
Three things about the switch to EMOJI make me very unhappy:
1. The Smileys look like blobs.
2. They are static. Many of the old ones were animated, and interesting effects could be created by combining them.
3. Users have lost our identities. People used to identify my posts at a glance, because of the [cooldance] dude I used in my signature line. Many people have similar avatars, but the characteristic use of emoticons, especially in sig lines, gave us personality.
1. The Smileys look like blobs.
2. They are static. Many of the old ones were animated, and interesting effects could be created by combining them.
3. Users have lost our identities. People used to identify my posts at a glance, because of the [cooldance] dude I used in my signature line. Many people have similar avatars, but the characteristic use of emoticons, especially in sig lines, gave us personality.
Precisely. And now they're gone, due to "popular demand," which is obviously a big load of bull.
So, the announcement thread gets locked after HUNDREDS of complaints and you still think this is a good idea?
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/thread/235128106
Yuck
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/thread/235128106
Yuck
I wasn't comparing the problem itself so much as the reaction to it. You mention 100 million users of IMDb... but how many of those are using the *boards*? The negative reaction is coming from the section of those however-many-million people who actually are "affected" (however slight the effect is in the long run).
bluesmanSF, Champion
Many millions use the boards. My user ID is ten million something...
A better example in your restaurant scenario would be if they changed the style or color of all the chairs. They might have complaints from one or two people but won't likely change again because of it and most others won't notice, care or simply think it's not worth mentioning. Customers won't decide to stay or leave because of it. They come there for the food.
A better example in your restaurant scenario would be if they changed the style or color of all the chairs. They might have complaints from one or two people but won't likely change again because of it and most others won't notice, care or simply think it's not worth mentioning. Customers won't decide to stay or leave because of it. They come there for the food.
Excuse me, I meant REGULARLY use the boards... And I think you know what I was trying to get at with my analogy...But that's okay. I give up. Doesn't matter what I say or think, so this discussion is really pointless. :-)
@bluesmanSF; doesn't everyone get a user ID number regardless of whether or not they use the boards? I do believe that number is a simple counter based on when you registered. I registered in 1999 and have an ID in the hundreds of thousands, though I didn't sign up for using the boards until many years later.
I seriously doubt tens of millions of unique users have posted in the boards...
I seriously doubt tens of millions of unique users have posted in the boards...
bluesmanSF, Champion
Not everyone visiting the site, but those who register get an ID. Whether they have read board messages (samples appear on the title/name pages, so it's likely mostly have seen messages). I have no idea how many post.
There's no difference between signing up and signing up to use the boards (other than the extra authentication required), so your number is your number regardless of when you started posting.
It might seem low percentage of users that use the boards (and staff has confirmed that it's a relatively small percentage of the site's visitors), but even if it's only 10,000 using the boards, a few dozen complaining that one cartoon is any worse than another (though, outside of IMDb, Emoji's are hugely popular) is a small percentage...perhaps less than 1%? I wouldn't even want to embark on trying to find out how many users are actively posting with the size of this site...10,000,000 message boards and all.
There's no difference between signing up and signing up to use the boards (other than the extra authentication required), so your number is your number regardless of when you started posting.
It might seem low percentage of users that use the boards (and staff has confirmed that it's a relatively small percentage of the site's visitors), but even if it's only 10,000 using the boards, a few dozen complaining that one cartoon is any worse than another (though, outside of IMDb, Emoji's are hugely popular) is a small percentage...perhaps less than 1%? I wouldn't even want to embark on trying to find out how many users are actively posting with the size of this site...10,000,000 message boards and all.
I know you might think this is a minor thing (I mean, it's just smilies for god's sake)...
But, basically, you've forced us to change the language we use to express ourselves.
And, YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY ASK ANY OF THE USERS before you made this change.
But, basically, you've forced us to change the language we use to express ourselves.
And, YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY ASK ANY OF THE USERS before you made this change.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Wow, sorry to hear that.
I second Issel's comment! [angry5]
"... basically, you've forced us ..."Count me out of that argument. IMDb doesn't "force" me to do anything. If I don't like the way things are going, I am free to go elsewhere. I am not so dependent on IMDb that I couldn't afford to leave. (That said, I'm not going to leave the boards just because of an emoji infestation.) ;-)
"... to change the language we use to express ourselves."Can it be argued that these pictorial symbols serve identifiable roles as expressive markers that become closely associated with "the language we use" in CMC (computer-mediated communications)? ... Studies have observed that emoticons and emoji serve at least "paralinguistic" and conversational functions:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=linguistic+OR+paralinguistic+intitle%3Aemoticons
IMO:
When a familiar set of supplementary expressive symbols is suddenly replaced by a new set that is very different in style, content, and character, some users may find the change jarring -- not only because some dislike the new set for various reasons, but also because the sudden change may disrupt the established comfort and fluency of accustomed mappings of expressive roles that users had customarily assigned to the old symbols.
(Edited)
Lucus, yes, it is basically 'forcing' when the original option to express ourselves has been removed and the only option is to change the way express ourselves or leave the site.
But, the second part of your post totally understands my point of view: Emoji is a language... not one that I care to speak.
Interesting thought: What if our use of emojis gradually becomes so extensive that we actually circle back to writing in hieroglyphics?
But, the second part of your post totally understands my point of view: Emoji is a language... not one that I care to speak.
Interesting thought: What if our use of emojis gradually becomes so extensive that we actually circle back to writing in hieroglyphics?
Lucus, yes, it is basically 'forcing' when the original option to express ourselves has been removed and the only option is to change the way express ourselves or leave the site.Speaking for myself, as I said: "if I don't like the way things are going, I am free to go elsewhere." For me, that is sufficient.
.
(Edited)
I have also discovered about these TERRIBLE emoticons, that you cannot post them when on your phone or Ipad. They come up as question marks, or not at all. And when viewing them on Ipad, the new fat ones have a emoji inside them. Weird!!! These fat ugly gum drop looking new emoticons don't have any motion like the old ones did.
(Edited)
That's funny, because they mentioned iPhone and iPad users specifically as one of the reasons they implemented the new ones.
However, from what I know of texting (Android though, so perhaps not entirely comparable), the codes for inserting an Emoji in a text is very different than the bracketed codes used by IMDb for an Emoji, so I never really bought that argument to begin with.
However, from what I know of texting (Android though, so perhaps not entirely comparable), the codes for inserting an Emoji in a text is very different than the bracketed codes used by IMDb for an Emoji, so I never really bought that argument to begin with.
So, another reason for switching to these ****-**-****-"emoji", namely making them phone-compatible, is invalid?
Since when do fourth-grade Japanese schoolgirls make up the key demographic for IMDb?
I just continue to use the old code, hoping that people will remember the emoticons (not "emoji" [barf])
I just continue to use the old code, hoping that people will remember the emoticons (not "emoji" [barf])
I do the same.
What are we supposed to do for [laugh]?
"... I thought your code above unnecessarily closed the tags ...."Yep, that was clumsy of me. Thanks for catching that.
"... I also found a bug in the emoji code. It should not execute inside the [pre] tag ....You're quite right. (I too had noticed that.) When an emoji tag is placed between [pre]...[/pre] tags (example: [pre][eyes][/pre]), then the emoji tag should not render the emoji, but currently it does. The [pre] tag is supposed to "preserve formatting" of text, without markup replacement.
(Perhaps we should've opened a separate thread for that bug report?)
(Edited)
(Edited)
Murray Chapman, Employee
This is technically not a bug, but I can see why people think it is.
The emoji representations like [cat_face_with_wry_smile] aren't really markup, they are an input convenience for people whose platforms don't natively support emoji. We could have had the emoji-picker just insert the Unicode character, but unless you've got a special font installed it will likely look like a box with hex characters in it.
When you post a boards message, any [unicode_emoji] tokens are translated to native Unicode characters before it starts looking for markup. So a [pre] block is doing the right thing: it's showing what markup there is and leaving individual characters alone.
When you edit a message the native Unicode characters are translated back into the [unicode_emoji] tokens so it all looks symmetrical.
Note that on platforms that support Unicode emoji natively (iPhones etc) the [unicode_emoji] tokens don't appear.
The emoji representations like [cat_face_with_wry_smile] aren't really markup, they are an input convenience for people whose platforms don't natively support emoji. We could have had the emoji-picker just insert the Unicode character, but unless you've got a special font installed it will likely look like a box with hex characters in it.
When you post a boards message, any [unicode_emoji] tokens are translated to native Unicode characters before it starts looking for markup. So a [pre] block is doing the right thing: it's showing what markup there is and leaving individual characters alone.
When you edit a message the native Unicode characters are translated back into the [unicode_emoji] tokens so it all looks symmetrical.
Note that on platforms that support Unicode emoji natively (iPhones etc) the [unicode_emoji] tokens don't appear.
It's more of an inconsistency than a bug. I see the real shortcoming in using square brackets instead of something like this.{wink} The emoji code looks like the other markup, so naturally people will expect it to behave the same way.
Is there a CSS file out on the web that we can use so the emojis we use will render the same everywhere?
Is there a CSS file out on the web that we can use so the emojis we use will render the same everywhere?
(Edited)
Murray Chapman, Employee
It's easy to change because it's never stored in the database.
Maybe we should create a poll and see what people think.
Maybe we should create a poll and see what people think.
Well, this discussion is quieting down, so ... let's do some numbers:
Up to now, only 21 people have clicked to "Like" this thread. ... But we know that many more than 21 people have expressed a preference for the old emoticons.
In a reply above, someone estimated just "a few dozen" total complaints?
I've spent just an hour checking a few threads on a few popular boards, and I now know of over 24 dozen (288+) unique users who have expressed a preference to keep the old emoticons available. Since I only checked a few threads on a few boards, I would assume that my count of 288+ is probably far lower than the total number of users who may have expressed a preference to keep the old emoticons available.
Whether I'm right or wrong about that, we'll never know the total number of users who would've preferred to keep the old emoticons. ... Of course, the numbers don't really matter. The change is done. Some reasons for the change were explained in the announcement thread.
Everything that could be said has been said -- in the announcement thread, in various other threads on various boards, and finally here. It has been an interesting discussion. Thanks to IMDb for giving us a place to be heard.
Thanks also to the staff members who participated in this thread here on the aptly-named Get Satisfaction dot com. ... [EDIT] -- (Sorry, my mistake. No staff members participated in this thread here. Well, thanks anyway for letting us carry on the discussion amongst ourselves.) ;-)
Up to now, only 21 people have clicked to "Like" this thread. ... But we know that many more than 21 people have expressed a preference for the old emoticons.
In a reply above, someone estimated just "a few dozen" total complaints?
I've spent just an hour checking a few threads on a few popular boards, and I now know of over 24 dozen (288+) unique users who have expressed a preference to keep the old emoticons available. Since I only checked a few threads on a few boards, I would assume that my count of 288+ is probably far lower than the total number of users who may have expressed a preference to keep the old emoticons available.
Whether I'm right or wrong about that, we'll never know the total number of users who would've preferred to keep the old emoticons. ... Of course, the numbers don't really matter. The change is done. Some reasons for the change were explained in the announcement thread.
Everything that could be said has been said -- in the announcement thread, in various other threads on various boards, and finally here. It has been an interesting discussion. Thanks to IMDb for giving us a place to be heard.
Thanks also to the staff members who participated in this thread here on the aptly-named Get Satisfaction dot com. ... [EDIT] -- (Sorry, my mistake. No staff members participated in this thread here. Well, thanks anyway for letting us carry on the discussion amongst ourselves.) ;-)
Now that a staff member has replied (below), I hereby wish to "withdraw" my earlier quip (above) about lack of staff response.
(In retrospect, I should've added a word to that quip: Staff hadn't "yet" replied at that time. I shouldn't have doubted that staff would respond in due course, as indeed they have.)
.
(In retrospect, I should've added a word to that quip: Staff hadn't "yet" replied at that time. I shouldn't have doubted that staff would respond in due course, as indeed they have.)
.
(Edited)
Thanks also to the staff members who participated in this thread here on the aptly-named Get Satisfaction dot com. ... [EDIT] -- (Sorry, my mistake. No staff members participated in this thread here. Well, thanks anyway for letting us carry on the discussion amongst ourselves.) ;-)
(Edited)
Dan Dassow, Champion
I found it interesting that the classic emoticons show up as:
My first reaction was instant dislike, dare I say, hatred. If after a few weeks, I still dislike these "emoticons designed by "deranged clowns for deranged clowns" I will complain.
[laugh][clap]laugh]in my email feed.
My first reaction was instant dislike, dare I say, hatred. If after a few weeks, I still dislike these "emoticons designed by "deranged clowns for deranged clowns" I will complain.
Sorry to say, Dan, that it occasionally happens with the notifications here. There was a bug in your LIKE for this one:
"I'd get a lot more satisfaction if the entire board system were moved here. We don't have any emoticons here unfortunately. Actually we do, since you can drop an image into a post.
That's not ever likely to happen on the IMDb boards though, is it?"
Still 80% is better than nothing!
"I'd get a lot more satisfaction if the entire board system were moved here. We don't have any emoticons here unfortunately.
Actually we do, since you can drop an image into a post. That's not ever likely to happen on the IMDb boards though, is it?"Still 80% is better than nothing!
Another screwup was that they allowed seven naming conflicts between the two sets of emoticons! You can see them here. I believe they are plain here because they require a style sheet to display properly:
Basic:
[4eyes] [afro] [angel] [angry] [argue] [aura] [bigeek] [biggrin] [bigrazz] [birthday]
[blah] [blush] [bounce] [caver] [chatty] [cheers] [cloak] [clown] [colorful] [confused]
[cool] [cry] [dead] [devil] [eek] [embarrassed] [explode] [frozen] [glasses]
[gonemad] [gum] [hehe] [hide] [iloveu] [interest] [joker] [laugh] [newbie]
[ninja] [no] [noir] [none] [odd] [out] [party] [popcorn] [razz] [roll] [roll2]
[royal] [sad] [shy] [sigh] [sleep] [smile] [smoke1] [snow] [sword] [trendy] [uhoh] [upset] [wave]
[weird] [white] [wild] [wink] [winkgrin] [yes]
Animals:
[animal] [bunny] [butterfly] [cats] [flowercat] [nicebat] [spider] [whitecat]
Confused:
[change] [conf1] [conf2] [conf3] [devilconf] [giveup] [help] [hmm] [mjeyds] [wazup]
Cool:
[cool1] [cool2] [cooldance] [cooldance2] [coolmonkey] [hasta] [trum]
Happy:
[2face] [3c] [3eyes] [blink] [clap] [hat] [hippy] [sombrero] [square] [wave3] [xmas]
Jumping:
[jump1] [jump10] [jump2] [jump3] [jump4] [jump5] [jump6] [jump7] [jump8] [jump9]
Love:
[love1] [love10] [love2] [love3] [love4] [love5] [love6] [love7] [love8] [love9]
Sad:
[sad1] [sad2] [sad3] [sad4] [sad5] [sad6] [sad7] [sad8]
Evil Grin:
[evil1] [evil10] [evil2] [evil3] [evil4] [evil5] [evil6] [evil7] [evil8] [evil9]
Angry:
[angry1] [angry10] [angry2] [angry3] [angry4] [angry5] [angry6] [angry7] [angry9] [flameangry]
Fighting:
[fight1] [fight10] [fight2] [fight3] [fight4] [fight5] [fight6] [fight7] [fight8] [fight9]
Miscellaneous:
[blush2] [hairrise] [listicon] [misc1] [misc2] [misc3] [sleep1] [tongue2]
The above graphics are used with kind permission from Planetsmilies.com
See the emojis here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/nest/235128106?d=235162785#235162785
Basic:
[4eyes] [afro] [angel] [angry] [argue] [aura] [bigeek] [biggrin] [bigrazz] [birthday]
[blah] [blush] [bounce] [caver] [chatty] [cheers] [cloak] [clown] [colorful] [confused]
[cool] [cry] [dead] [devil] [eek] [embarrassed] [explode] [frozen] [glasses]
[gonemad] [gum] [hehe] [hide] [iloveu] [interest] [joker] [laugh] [newbie]
[ninja] [no] [noir] [none] [odd] [out] [party] [popcorn] [razz] [roll] [roll2]
[royal] [sad] [shy] [sigh] [sleep] [smile] [smoke1] [snow] [sword] [trendy] [uhoh] [upset] [wave]
[weird] [white] [wild] [wink] [winkgrin] [yes]
Animals:
[animal] [bunny] [butterfly] [cats] [flowercat] [nicebat] [spider] [whitecat]
Confused:
[change] [conf1] [conf2] [conf3] [devilconf] [giveup] [help] [hmm] [mjeyds] [wazup]
Cool:
[cool1] [cool2] [cooldance] [cooldance2] [coolmonkey] [hasta] [trum]
Happy:
[2face] [3c] [3eyes] [blink] [clap] [hat] [hippy] [sombrero] [square] [wave3] [xmas]
Jumping:
[jump1] [jump10] [jump2] [jump3] [jump4] [jump5] [jump6] [jump7] [jump8] [jump9]
Love:
[love1] [love10] [love2] [love3] [love4] [love5] [love6] [love7] [love8] [love9]
Sad:
[sad1] [sad2] [sad3] [sad4] [sad5] [sad6] [sad7] [sad8]
Evil Grin:
[evil1] [evil10] [evil2] [evil3] [evil4] [evil5] [evil6] [evil7] [evil8] [evil9]
Angry:
[angry1] [angry10] [angry2] [angry3] [angry4] [angry5] [angry6] [angry7] [angry9] [flameangry]
Fighting:
[fight1] [fight10] [fight2] [fight3] [fight4] [fight5] [fight6] [fight7] [fight8] [fight9]
Miscellaneous:
[blush2] [hairrise] [listicon] [misc1] [misc2] [misc3] [sleep1] [tongue2]
The above graphics are used with kind permission from Planetsmilies.com
See the emojis here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/nest/235128106?d=235162785#235162785
(Edited)
After the tongue-in-cheek comment at the end of my last reply, I want to add a "constructive" note.
In the announcement thread, staff member Muzzle took time out of his day to post several replies, explaining as best he could, while taking a lot of flak.
If I'm honest, I'm going to have to admit that I can partly understand some aspects of what he explained. ... There, now I've said that.
Now I want to point out something interesting that Muzzle said, early in that thread.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/thread/235128106?d=235132018#235132018
I quote:
Note that last sentence offering to "look at another set if you can find (or create) one" (emphasis added).
If that offer still stands, it means IMDb is apparently at least willing to consider the possibility of adopting a user-submitted set of emoji.
That opens an opportunity if someone is technically and artistically inclined and motivated to pursue this.
Perhaps someone who's good at this stuff could come up with some "better" emoji -- in a style arguably more suitable for the IMDb boards than what we've got now.
Even if someone takes this opportunity, I suppose some questions or controversies could arise to complicate matters ... (regarding e.g., whatever criteria and ground-rules apply for consideration, reasons for rejection, and finally, acceptance of some winning set of emoji that could be very good but won't please everyone).
But I think it sounds like an interesting opportunity to contribute. (I was even thinking about maybe giving it a shot, until I remembered that I'm not an artist.)
In the announcement thread, staff member Muzzle took time out of his day to post several replies, explaining as best he could, while taking a lot of flak.
If I'm honest, I'm going to have to admit that I can partly understand some aspects of what he explained. ... There, now I've said that.
Now I want to point out something interesting that Muzzle said, early in that thread.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/thread/235128106?d=235132018#235132018
I quote:
[The Google/Android emoji] "... are the only complete set of emoji available with a permissive license. We'd be happy to look at another set if you can find (or create) one!"
Note that last sentence offering to "look at another set if you can find (or create) one" (emphasis added).
If that offer still stands, it means IMDb is apparently at least willing to consider the possibility of adopting a user-submitted set of emoji.
That opens an opportunity if someone is technically and artistically inclined and motivated to pursue this.
Perhaps someone who's good at this stuff could come up with some "better" emoji -- in a style arguably more suitable for the IMDb boards than what we've got now.
Even if someone takes this opportunity, I suppose some questions or controversies could arise to complicate matters ... (regarding e.g., whatever criteria and ground-rules apply for consideration, reasons for rejection, and finally, acceptance of some winning set of emoji that could be very good but won't please everyone).
But I think it sounds like an interesting opportunity to contribute. (I was even thinking about maybe giving it a shot, until I remembered that I'm not an artist.)
(Edited)
In addition to the aforementioned quotation from Muzzle, he also said:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/thread/235128106?d=235156993#235156993
.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/thread/235128106?d=235156993#235156993
"The Unicode consortium says that animated emoji are permitted, however we're not in the emoji/icon business and won't be producing our own. If someone wants to make a complete set with friendly licensing terms then we'll look at it."So, if that offer stands, a user-submitted set of emoji could possibly include animation.
.
IIUC, since any submitted emoji would have to be (as noted above) "a complete set", the artist would have to produce replacements for all of the existing emoji images.
IIUC, the artist would be mostly constrained by the existing emoji subject matter. Obviously, an artist can and should exercise some creative leeway -- but the existing characteristics and assigned purposes of emoji cannot be completely ignored, and would put some constraints on decisions.
BTW, obviously some controversies can arise regarding any set of emoji, for various reasons. ... For one example, what about "diversity"? In reply to someone's comment in the announcement thread, Muzzle mentioned this article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/unicode-unveils-250-new-emoji-gets-thumbs-down-diversity-1604038
.
IIUC, the artist would be mostly constrained by the existing emoji subject matter. Obviously, an artist can and should exercise some creative leeway -- but the existing characteristics and assigned purposes of emoji cannot be completely ignored, and would put some constraints on decisions.
BTW, obviously some controversies can arise regarding any set of emoji, for various reasons. ... For one example, what about "diversity"? In reply to someone's comment in the announcement thread, Muzzle mentioned this article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/unicode-unveils-250-new-emoji-gets-thumbs-down-diversity-1604038
.
Here's pretty much a complete set of the old ones. You can copy it from here and paste it into MS Word. Save it as an HTML document and you can use it instead of the website:
Basic:
Animals:
Confused:
Cool:
Happy:
Jumping:
Love:
Sad:
Evil Grin:
Angry:
Fighting:
Miscellaneous:
The above graphics are used with kind permission from Planetsmilies.com
Basic:
Animals:
Confused:
Cool:
Happy:
Jumping:
Love:
Sad:
Evil Grin:
Angry:
Fighting:
Miscellaneous:
The above graphics are used with kind permission from Planetsmilies.com
(Edited)
So which set is more universal? You can't display the new emojis here, because technically they are stylized characters and not images.
Murray Chapman, Employee
The complaints about the new Emoji fall into two broad categories:
There is a fair bit of overlap, but it's definitely not complete. We are aware of this and it was considered when deciding whether to make the change or not. Users may not be aware that we previous had other of the PlanetSmilies images on the site but took them off due to concerns about tone (they were overly violent). When we removed them there was a similar outcry about censorship and "destroying IMDb", however the community adapted and lived on.
While the existing IMDb boards users are probably more familiar/comfortable with the old smileys, the much-larger set of people we are looking to attract to the IMDb boards are definitely more comfortable with the Unicode-compatible emoji, having used them on Twitter and smartphones. If you took a new user and presented them with both sets of images and asked them which ones cover a broader range of topics/emotions, we feel confident they would choose the new set. We recognize that this will inconvenience some of our existing users, and for that we apologize.
Users who feel strongly that the absence of particular smileys from the new set has critically reduced their ability to communicate are urged to submit a proposal to the Unicode Consortium to include them in a future version of the standard. The consortium has well-defined procedures for documenting the debate and making a reasoned, well-informed decision on the suitability of including them in the standard. If there is a strong case for including some of the old icons then there should be no problem getting them added, which means they will be able to be used everywhere on the internet. Doing this is pretty much your only option for getting new emoticons on IMDb.
Addressing #2:
This is really a subjective issue that we won't ever reach consensus on. Having made the decision to switch, the only freely-available complete set of Emoji we have found is the one from the Android/Noto project. I've been in contact with the people involved in that project and they are very keen to hear feedback about the design in general or specific complaints on individual emoji. They have a bug tracking system and a mailing list that anyone can join; this is a real, practical step you can take to get things changed on IMDb. Also: these emoji are used in Android, so your feedback will shape the experience of hundreds of millions of people using smartphones in the future.
Alternatively, we are definitely open to the possibility of changing to an entirely new set of images. There are only three conditions: (a) they must have a license that makes it easy for us to use; (b) they must be compatible with Unicode and adhere to the general intentions therein; (c) they must be reasonably generic (e.g. not all modeled after zombies or a particular brand). It's a pretty big project to create over 800 scalable, consistent, and high-quality images, but again this is a practical step that users can take.
- The new emoji don't cover the same topics/emotions as the old ones
- Stylistic/artistic criticisms
There is a fair bit of overlap, but it's definitely not complete. We are aware of this and it was considered when deciding whether to make the change or not. Users may not be aware that we previous had other of the PlanetSmilies images on the site but took them off due to concerns about tone (they were overly violent). When we removed them there was a similar outcry about censorship and "destroying IMDb", however the community adapted and lived on.
While the existing IMDb boards users are probably more familiar/comfortable with the old smileys, the much-larger set of people we are looking to attract to the IMDb boards are definitely more comfortable with the Unicode-compatible emoji, having used them on Twitter and smartphones. If you took a new user and presented them with both sets of images and asked them which ones cover a broader range of topics/emotions, we feel confident they would choose the new set. We recognize that this will inconvenience some of our existing users, and for that we apologize.
Users who feel strongly that the absence of particular smileys from the new set has critically reduced their ability to communicate are urged to submit a proposal to the Unicode Consortium to include them in a future version of the standard. The consortium has well-defined procedures for documenting the debate and making a reasoned, well-informed decision on the suitability of including them in the standard. If there is a strong case for including some of the old icons then there should be no problem getting them added, which means they will be able to be used everywhere on the internet. Doing this is pretty much your only option for getting new emoticons on IMDb.
Addressing #2:
This is really a subjective issue that we won't ever reach consensus on. Having made the decision to switch, the only freely-available complete set of Emoji we have found is the one from the Android/Noto project. I've been in contact with the people involved in that project and they are very keen to hear feedback about the design in general or specific complaints on individual emoji. They have a bug tracking system and a mailing list that anyone can join; this is a real, practical step you can take to get things changed on IMDb. Also: these emoji are used in Android, so your feedback will shape the experience of hundreds of millions of people using smartphones in the future.
Alternatively, we are definitely open to the possibility of changing to an entirely new set of images. There are only three conditions: (a) they must have a license that makes it easy for us to use; (b) they must be compatible with Unicode and adhere to the general intentions therein; (c) they must be reasonably generic (e.g. not all modeled after zombies or a particular brand). It's a pretty big project to create over 800 scalable, consistent, and high-quality images, but again this is a practical step that users can take.
I attempted to edit my previous reply, but the edit failed. I wanted to ...That's because someone (Helen) LIKEd your post while you were editing. It's an annoyance that could be eliminated here by giving the EDIT priority over the LIKE.
That's because someone (Helen) LIKEd your post while you were editing. It's an annoyance that could be eliminated here by giving the EDIT priority over the LIKE.
Wow, yeah, that is really poor functionality. Even the misbegotten, deformed, insanely conversation-killing current version of gawdawful Kinja allows posts to get liked while they're being edited. You'd think they could manage it here.
(Edited)
What if the editor replaces his post with a flame against you? You'd look pretty stupid liking it. When someone edits a post the LIKE link should be replaced with a notice that the post is being edited.
Dan Dassow, Champion
DrakeStraw wrote:
1. If someone likes your post, indicate to the poster that other users like the post and that the likes will be voided if the post is edited.
2. If the edit is made, void the likes and notify the users liking the post that their likes were voided.
What if the editor replaces his post with a flame against you? You'd look pretty stupid liking it. When someone edits a post the LIKE link should be replaced with a notice that the post is being edited.I personally would prefer the current functionality or this two step functionality:
1. If someone likes your post, indicate to the poster that other users like the post and that the likes will be voided if the post is edited.
2. If the edit is made, void the likes and notify the users liking the post that their likes were voided.
Your functionality is even better. LIKEs preëmpting EDITs is the really irritating functionality we have now.
Murray Chapman, Employee
The fine Google folks at the Noto project have opened a ticket to track the issues raised in the IMDb boards about the appearance of the new emoji:
https://code.google.com/p/noto/issues...
We encourage everyone to get involved. Please be aware that IMDb and Google are not formally engaged on any collaboration in this matter; we're communicating out of professional courtesy but both parties will undoubtedly make independent decisions.
https://code.google.com/p/noto/issues...
We encourage everyone to get involved. Please be aware that IMDb and Google are not formally engaged on any collaboration in this matter; we're communicating out of professional courtesy but both parties will undoubtedly make independent decisions.
https://code.google.com/p/noto/issues/detail?id=174Excellent.
BTW:
Anyone who has a Google account can sign-in and click the "star" icon on that page to indicate interest in the issue.
The small "star" icon will be visible (at the far left of the "Issue 174..." headline) only when you are signed-in to your Google account.
After you click the star, make sure that it is then yellow, indicating that your click has been recorded.
If many people click that star, that indication of popular interest may help to prioritize the issue for developers.
.
(Edited)
