Don't activate forum emojis unless there are spaces next to them.

mightybrayan

Above: By LankyBox01

In the forums, there are a few emojis to express yourself.
Here they are.

etc.

But sometimes:
> People just either want to express themselves using the classic emoticon but can't because they automatically get converted into emojis
> New forum users may not think that emoticon text automatically convert themselves into emojis after posting
> Placing an emoticon's cheek right next to text looks cramped and ugly (my opinion)
> People can manually spam by repeatedly pressing two parts of an emoji such as

by pressing : and / repeatedly

I suggest that forum emojis should only activate if there are spaces next to them. (some exceptions, read the whole post)

As an example:

fdreerf wrote:
Intended text: The ratio of the variables C:D should be 15:7.
What comes out: The ratio of the variables C should be 15:7.
-snip-

Another example:

Intended text:
User1234 wrote:
So I just figured out how to see my computer's apps, you just need to type C:/Apps in your browser!
What comes out:
User1234 wrote:
So I just figured out how to see my computer's apps, you just need to type CApps in your browser!

After this is implemented, ratios, people wanting to express themselves using emoticons, and several other things will be fixed/resolved.

There are also other uses for this, as sometimes people get angry and they don't realise there is a

emoji, they just use the classic angry emoticon and this happens:

> u are so annoying!

and also, it will make the forums look less cramped when emojis are being used:

With:
thanks a lot!
Without:
thanks a lot!

The one on the top looks neater, right?

Also, even though it can be easily worked around, people trying to spam emojis in the forum by repeatedly pressing two characters will be stopped automatically.

Before:
NaughtySpammer wrote:

Ahahaha, I have annoyed you by spamming emojis!
After:
NaughtySpammer wrote:
:/:/:/:/:/:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:/:/:/:/:/:/:/
No fair, it didn't work!

If the emoji dropdown is used instead, spaces will be inserted automatically on the sides as using the dropdown means that inserting an emoji is most likely desired.

mybearworld wrote:
Here's a problem:

This emoji doesn't have any spaces beside it, yet I still want it to render.

Here's another problem. It's in this very sentence
See? There's only one space, yet I still want it to render.

In addition, this rule of not activating forum emojis unless there are spaces beside them will be bypassed if the emoji is by itself on a new line - because sometimes people just use emojis by themselves on one line, and there is no need to have this rule apply to emojis by themselves on a line, or if the emoji is at the end of a line - because physically typing a space behind the emoticon feels unnatural for (I would say most) people.

I hope this is a good suggestion.

yes i know scratch team can't really update forums but still

Some workarounds currently available:
Insert a zero-width space between the characters:

CatsUnited wrote:
The only way I've seen where you can bypass the forum's emojis is by inserting a 0 width space between the characters that make up the face.

Add BBCode tags in between the characters:

bigpuppy wrote:
I've also seen people bypass them by adding BBCode tags in between the characters; for example typing
:c[b][/b]ool:
would produce
”:cool:", or typing
:[b][/b]D
would produce
“:D”.

Wrap in black colour tag

64lu wrote:
you can also bypass it by putting a black color tag around it
Exemplar
[color=black]stuff here :/ :/ :/[/color]

Similar to 64lu's, using auto colour instead

SuperMarioHome wrote:
Another way to get ":)":
[color=auto]:)[/color]

Using the code tag could work but it ruins the formatting of the rest of the post.

Za-Chary wrote:

I suppose the workaround for that would be to
use the "code" tag for the entirety of your post,
but I can understand why Scratchers might not
want to do that... :/

Last edited by mightybrayan (April 18, 2022 22:00:41)

CatsUnited

This would actually be kinda useful because sometimes I prefer using the text based faces over the image ones (they're slightly taller than one line of text which is a bit annoying) and there are some cases like the one you've showcased where it's a bit inconvenient.

The only way I've seen where you can bypass the forum's emojis is by inserting a 0 width space between the characters that make up the face. For example in my signature, I managed to get :cool: by inserting the 0 width space in the middle of the text.

bigpuppy

CatsUnited wrote:
The only way I've seen where you can bypass the forum's emojis is by inserting a 0 width space between the characters that make up the face. For example in my signature, I managed to get :cool: by inserting the 0 width space in the middle of the text.

I've also seen people bypass them by adding BBCode tags in between the characters; for example typing ":c[b][/b]ool:“ would produce ”:cool:", or typing :[b][/b]D would produce ":D".

64lu

yeah, this would be helpful, especially in the cases you mentioned.
I would assume that the current posts with emojis would still stay the same though.

——

CatsUnited wrote:
-snip
The only way I've seen where you can bypass the forum's emojis is by inserting a 0 width space between the characters that make up the face. For example in my signature, I managed to get :cool: by inserting the 0 width space in the middle of the text.

you can also bypass it by putting a black color tag around it

hedgehog_blue

64lu wrote:
yeah, this would be helpful, especially in the cases you mentioned.
I would assume that the current posts with emojis would still stay the same though.

——
CatsUnited wrote:
-snip
The only way I've seen where you can bypass the forum's emojis is by inserting a 0 width space between the characters that make up the face. For example in my signature, I managed to get :cool: by inserting the 0 width space in the middle of the text.
you can also bypass it by putting a black color tag around it

Some people have custom styling applied to the page that make the text color not be black (such as a dark theme or custom css extension), so I prefer to use other methods :P

mightybrayan

bump

mightybrayan

bump! why is nobody replying?

Nambaseking01

I think a better solution would be removing smiley shortcuts and only being able to use them with the dropdown.

And maybe, if people want the shortcuts, there would be an option to enable them next to all the other signs. It would be turned on by default, and users would be able to turn it off.

I think this idea is better because I can see how this feature could easily go wrong in many ways.

Bluebatstar

Nambaseking01 wrote:
I think a better solution would be removing smiley shortcuts and only being able to use them with the dropdown.

And maybe, if people want the shortcuts, there would be an option to enable them next to all the other signs. It would be turned on by default, and users would be able to turn it off.

I think this idea is better because I can see how this feature could easily go wrong in many ways.

I support what Nambaseking01 is suggesting.

mightybrayan

Nambaseking01 wrote:
I think a better solution would be removing smiley shortcuts and only being able to use them with the dropdown.

And maybe, if people want the shortcuts, there would be an option to enable them next to all the other signs. It would be turned on by default, and users would be able to turn it off.

I think this idea is better because I can see how this feature could easily go wrong in many ways.

That makes sense, but..

How could it go wrong? I'm can't really see how it could, could you explain please?

bump

DownsGameClub

Why not use the

[code]xyz[/code]

tags?

fdreerf

DownsGameClub wrote:
Why not use the
[code]xyz[/code]
tags?

Intended text: The ratio of the variables C:D should be 15:7.
What comes out: The ratio of the variables C

should be 15:7.
Using the code tag: The ratio of the variables

C:D

should be 15:7.

Za-Chary

fdreerf wrote:
-snip-

I suppose the workaround for that would be to
use the "code" tag for the entirety of your post,
but I can understand why Scratchers might not
want to do that... :/

mightybrayan

bump

DownsGameClub

fdreerf wrote:
DownsGameClub wrote:
Why not use the
[code]xyz[/code]
tags?
Intended text: The ratio of the variables C:D should be 15:7.
What comes out: The ratio of the variables C should be 15:7.
Using the code tag: The ratio of the variables
C:D
should be 15:7.

Oh…
Is there a way to disable emojis for a single post? I know some forum softwares allow that.

mightybrayan

enormous bump!!

mightybrayan

bump yet again

mightybrayan

bump yet again again

trfgbs

bump

D-ScratchNinja

Or, after typing ":/", the text could automatically be converted to a Unicode character in your post, which some social media services do. If you don't want it to look like that, then you would just press backspace to revert it. This has to be implemented properly, though, otherwise it could cause emojis to never appear or appear when you're not expecting.

Another solution would be to add a BBCode umm… what is it called- filter? that would allow you to type anything in, like:

[string]C://etc[/string]

Last edited by D-ScratchNinja (July 18, 2020 01:52:58)

Discuss Scratch