lolRider4Z wrote:i took it as singingFortKaze wrote:i agree that it's very clever and well done, but dont really like the end part, is like she's sceaming or yelling in the end? or is she saying animemusicvideos!!! xD if she is then i ll go for this one.jasper-isis wrote:I gotta say that I'm a fan of this one. It's clever, represents all three aspects of the site, and is good-looking to boot.
Style vs Applicability; It's certainly the best looking one there. But I have my doubts as to whether or not it'll look more than a little gaudy on the front page.jasper-isis wrote:I gotta say that I'm a fan of this one. It's clever, represents all three aspects of the site, and is good-looking to boot.
Now see, in my experience it's the fancy, complex logos that seem to wind up making the worst banners b/c they compete too much with the art ON the banners. I'm kind of curious whether the banner makers last year who were looking forward to wrangling the current logo found the experience more frustrating than anticipated. I know I found it hard to work with. My bad.Vivaldi wrote: It'd make for some awesome banners though.
Nice to hear someone had an easier time with my logo than I did.Rider4Z wrote:i didn't find it hard to work with. granted i never tried to do anything fancy with it. i pulled out a good sized handful of worthy banners with your logo no prob
besides i think the logo that best represents the site and has a certain level of quality to it should be voted for. not the one that's easiest for banner makers to work with
One thing's for sure, I've seen a lot of variations on it...so I guess in that respect it was highly adaptable. ^_^
See my gallery for answer ^^DriftRoot wrote:(...)I'm kind of curious whether the banner makers last year who were looking forward to wrangling the current logo found the experience more frustrating than anticipated.(...)
<Stirspeare> Otohiko: You guys sure love dongs.
I'm happy enough that you could even pick one, ya cranky old man.BasharOfTheAges wrote:Of the... what 32? I could only honestly pick 3.
Some of them are, actually. I allowed re-entries because 1) we weren't getting enough submissions, and 2) you gotta admit, there were some nice ones from previous years that never won. I strongly suggested that resubmitters try to go back and make improvements though. I'm tempted to make that a requirement in the future, but it's kind of hard to objectively judge what's an "improvement," and change for the sake of change doesn't always make better logos...And I'm pretty disappointed with the turnout this year, a lot of the logos look like rehashes from the past two years.
If you make some logos which you think are good and they don't get accepted, why should you change them (that is - if you still think they are that good!)?lynit wrote:Agreed. And I'm pretty disappointed with the turnout this year, a lot of the logos look like rehashes from the past two years. This is the only competition IMO.
