Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Not predicting sentiment of emoticons correctly #56

Closed
Rishav09 opened this issue Aug 31, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Not predicting sentiment of emoticons correctly #56

Rishav09 opened this issue Aug 31, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@Rishav09
Copy link

It is not predicting inconsistent results on emoticons.For instance, when I am passing this as '🙂' an argument, it is correctly predicting the outcome but on using same emoticons multiple times '🙂🙂',
it is giving neutral results.Similarly ,the same issue is arising in different cases of other emoji and sometimes ,it is not even detecting the single emoji too.

@ayushbits
Copy link

@cjhutto I am also facing the issue. Could you tell why is it happening ?

@ckw017
Copy link
Contributor

ckw017 commented Sep 5, 2018

The analyzer splits up the input by whitespace and looks for emoji among those tokens. So when it encounters a token like two smiling faces in a row, it will look for the token containing both faces in the emoji lexicon, fail to find it, and carry on. A fix for this would be to search for emoji on a character by character basis.

@ddugovic
Copy link

ddugovic commented Sep 6, 2018

Does 😃 😃 mean the same thing as 😃 ?

@ckw017
Copy link
Contributor

ckw017 commented Sep 6, 2018

I feel like it should mean the same thing as if ":)" would be to ":) :)"

@Rishav09
Copy link
Author

Rishav09 commented Sep 6, 2018

@ddugovic No, it doesn't. 😃 😃 have more positive compound score than 😃 .
@ckw017 Yes, I realised, emoji's needs to be space separated for analyser to work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants