alysdexia
commented
6 years ago "Muscial"
Malformed?! The instructions never said the emoji had to be of one theme; they did suggest I use Google Trends to assess interest. When the SC emaild me to gripe at my omission, I gave two counterexempla to prove that Google Trends did the opposite of their assertion.
UTC Document Submission To Autymn D. C. 09/30/16 at 3:01 PM Thank you for your interest in Unicode. This is to let you know that your proposal has been received and will be reviewed by the emoji subcommittee.
Autymn D. C. wrote: Please consider the attached document for submission to the UTC.
UTC Document Submission To Autymn D. C. 10/04/16 at 4:27 PM The emoji subcommittee has considered this proposal.
Members felt the proposal is too large, with too many items lumped together. If you wish to pursue this, you will need to break it up into a set of smaller proposals with topic areas separately addressed. For example lumping the mythological/fantasy beings into one proposal, animals into another, plants into another, household items... And so forth.
In general, the committee is favoring gender-neutral concepts. E.g., not having separate "giant" and "giantess", but a single "giant", which could be combined with other characters to make ZWJ sequences such as "female giant". Just as one example.
Please note that proposals have already been received for fly and salt/pepper shaker, so those can be omitted from any future document.
The resulting proposals all will need statistics and much more detail for the committee to consider any of the items. Please see some of the sample proposals for suggestions for expanding your information.
Regards,
Autymn D. C. wrote:
/Please consider the attached document for submission to the UTC./
Autymn D. C. To UTC Document Submission 10/05/16 at 12:17 AM The reason I combined all of the sections was to save work and time for both parties and save size of the document, but the individual entries in the table at least address the criteria for each emoji unlike your sample proposals which only deal with the set of emoji broadly and without detail; as such I didn't agree with your sample proposals' format. I gave more detail than they did other than their use of search amounts over time instead of indexed amounts at the time of writing and their use of the size of subcultures who take part in the concept behind the emoji.
Did you want me to talk about the size of these groups for my proposal? I think that is overspecific and again only accounts for how popular something already is, the concept behind the emoji, rather than how popular another thing could be, the emoji itself, by the intent of "expected frequency of use". I also disagree with the use of search popularity in proposals; that does not relate to how often everyone uses the emoji, and no relation or its strength between these has been shown. The trends in your sample proposals only use one keyword, unlike my search terms which narrow each term to the object, so the premise in your method is overbroad and deceptive. Both searches and results can be manipulated by bots. When I google Google Trends I get these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Trends "A group of researchers at Wellesley College examined data from Google Trends and analyzed how effective a tool it could be in predicting U.S. Congressional elections in 2008 and 2010. In highly contested races where data for both candidates were available, the data successfully predicted the outcome in 33.3% of cases in 2008 and 39% in 2010. The authors conclude that, compared to the traditional methods of election forecasting, incumbency and New York Times polls, and even in comparison with random chance, Google Trends did not prove to be a good predictor of either the 2008 or 2010 elections."
https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588#.uyhqu7769 "But what shouldn’t you use Google Trends for? Well, until people start using it appropriately, everything."
The main idea behind the Medium story is that the searches behind Trends tell when someone wants more information on a concept, not how often one uses or talks about a concept. So the Google results should be more proportional to how often everyone uses the emoji than the Google searches should be.
I don't know if it's necessary to cite the search popularity of one extant emoji in each grouping, like I'd need to cite the results for fish, tree, automobile, etc. The more often one does that the more cherrypicking makes it into a proposal and I want to avoid that. So that's why I only cited the extant ogre and goblin. Not to mention that because these are mostly new objects there aren't any similar emoji to compare them to.
I could draw gender-common (Gender-neutral, it/that/what, means something inanimate like a rock or robot, or maybe a Turner syndrome X.), one/who/some/they, persons but I'm not sure how to put in the clothes and hair, and it sounds like the classic terms for each gender with their proper endings may be left out for a longer, two-word construction. As the art for each gender already exists, couldn't a later artist add the common versions?
-Aut
They did not answer my last email. And later proposals used and succeeded my nominees without direct attribution: http://google.com/search?q=%2264+Complementary+Emoji%22; http://google.com/search?q=Unicode+compass+OR+brick+OR+parrot+OR+soap+OR+basket.
Crissov
spixi
calvaris
patrickelectric
Porges
The Emoji Subcommittee of the UTC now publishes a list of emoji proposals they have processed, alongside an assertion of their status. There are several duplicate entries and many malformed proposals due to a lacking or incomplete form, or an alias. Some entries have an obscure or ambiguous title that would only make sense with the corresponding document, e.g. Six Chinese-style emoji.
Animal
Clothing
Dishware
Emotion
Face / Person / Body
Faces
Body
People
Fantasy
Flags
Food
Game
Health / Medical
Household
Mixed
Muscial Instrument
Object
Other
Other: Object
Places
Science
Weather
Sport
Transport
342
Video