First Place:


This entry scored a grand total of 30 points!



Second Place:


This entry scored a grand total of 19 points!

Congratulations everyone!!

Yes; congrats are in order!

First place is awesome!!
I really like that one alot, well done ?????? er..................who did it?

It shows that we are all in a 3 dimensional business, that theres more to it than meets the eye if you just look round the corners. And the reflection!! Excellent Idea. That implies thought and time are paramount, its not just a shiny surface.

I might have read more into it than it was originally designed for, but thats what its SCREAMING at me!!
Im very impressed! might hire you!

Any plans to use it SR? Think you should!!


Second place looks good too, but I get a "clipart" feeling running through my veins

griffinsbridge wrote:

Second place looks good too, but I get a "clipart" feeling running through my veins

No Clipart here. All my work, took the planet from an old-but-never-used design I did. Simple font modifications for everything else.

First place was from some new member who has only made 1 post.

Yeah looks just like the old one..lol... Glad no one spent money on it.... Nice logo...but what kind of an art/graphics contest has a DUPLICATE as a winner? If we had known we were supposed to make a COPY or IMPROVEMENT on the existing, I guess a different contest would have ensued...

Weird stuff gang.... an excercise in futility... bruuuha ha ha ha ha ha

I just got a giggle outta this .... onto to other fun.

Hi,

the geometry of the boxes doesn´t match and the whole thing is overloaded with graphic effects (logos should be as simple as possible). I think, no. 1 entered not in time, but I don´t know exactly.

By the way I think what the gyspsy wrote is correct.

The visitors who voted for the contest didn´t know much about graphic, I think, so I don´t worry.

But, for me, I have learnded a lot of new and things and that´s very cool. And it was for fun. Maybe we could discuss this theme a little.

Congratulations and good bye

atothek

My vote was 23 and 27.
Some  are too-oo fishy, and i hesitate with regard to their safety as images, online.

I love 23 , because it includes shrimp, and is humorous.

I do like the wining entry and do feel like it's a re-work of the original one - even though the wrong box is tipped, and in the wrong direction!!

I noticed that many people put  the text

Discuss Marketing, Search Engines, Programming, and Good Site Practices

in their logo, when in fact it's not in the original - it's just  a line of plain text underneath.

Like it has been mentioned - logos are supposed to be simple, but a good logo is also an instantly recognisable brand and those 4 boxes of the apocalypse site refernece are recognisable, maybe mores o in the winning entry. (logos usually have  limited colour palette and shy away from tones due to the print costs involved, but this is online - the media is screen and download times are starting to be a thing of the past)

#24, #25, #26 tried, but maybe too simple and too out-of-space - nice idea though Angel!

Northie wrote, the sr logo is recognisable. Isn´t it a argument to what gispsy said.

Second thing: I don´t belive that earthmaps are recognisable any more, they were used too often.

Yep,

ak

aknet47 wrote:

The visitors who voted for the contest didn´t know much about graphic, I think, so I don´t worry.

I admit I don't know much about graphics, but I know what looks attractive

Mutilated1 wrote:

I admit I don't know much about graphics, but I know what looks attractive

That makes two of us, M1!

I think you guys should have another graphic design contest, only this time the subject matter should be something more fun like photoshop a celebrity into a parody advertisement or something funny

Mutilated1 wrote:

I think you guys should have another graphic design contest, only this time the subject matter should be something more fun like photoshop a celebrity into a parody advertisement or something funny

I could cheat real well on that idea!!

travelagent wrote:

Mutilated1 wrote:

I admit I don't know much about graphics, but I know what looks attractive

That makes two of us, M1!

Let's make that three, anyone else?

Congrats to all the entries

I must say, I'm impressed by the winner. I love the cubes (similar to mine, so I'm a bit one-sided there) and the whole style. I haven't seen any others, where can I take a ganer at them?

i like the cubes, well done on the design. I wish I could have entered something

jgarite wrote:

I must say, I'm impressed by the winner. I love the cubes (similar to mine, so I'm a bit one-sided there) and the whole style. I haven't seen any others, where can I take a ganer at them?

http://forums.site-reference.com/topic/ … n-Contest/

Congratulations to the winners, and, personally, I was impressed by most of the designs!

I was a bit confused though. It's hard to learn the purpose behind logos and how to create logos, unless you want to learn how to make them using one, of many, design programs. I never learned enough about how to make logos, even back in my "olden days" when I made one for my business, all I really knew was that...
-- it had to be done in easy (standard printer's) colors to use on stationary, flyers, business cards, and web sites without spending a fortune for multiple color supplies. It didn't need to be black and white, but, if it wasn't, it was best, as a start up business, to make it one of the typical colors a printer would have.
-- it had to work with all those different sizes, too.
-- it was just something to identify the service or product line, from all the others, rather then confusing it with the tag line. An icon kinda thing, rather then the the entire explanation.

Am I correct in what I thought a logo was? What am I missing? Site Reference is already branded -- a nice, simple, clean, business-like, but more of a casual-Friday style, then a button-down style. Weren't the logos supposed to go along with what Site Reference has already decided it would be? I'm just confused on what all the fuss is about?! If the client already has a style, isn't the graphic design supposed to reflect that style? I don't see the two winning logos as anything short of doing what the client would want.

And then, on the other hand, I was also surprised to see a "tag line" included, particular since it wasn't even Site Reference's tag line, just some writing to explain the forums.

Yes, I strongly suspect that most of us, who voted, (including me, obviously) aren't graphic designers, or even know what makes a good logo, except for the old adage, "I know it when I see it." Knowing that, it would be very helpful to clue us in. I can tell that most of the critical comments were made by folks in the know. Would you be kind enough to let the rest of us in on what you know? I can think of two good benefits for doing that...
-- the next contest, we'll all know what to look for, and...
-- we can learn why we'd be well advise to use you the next time we need a logo created!

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

Ok, you hit on a few points there, and I will do my best to touch on all of them.

it had to be done in easy (standard printer's) colors to use on stationary, flyers, business cards, and web sites without spending a fortune for multiple color supplies. It didn't need to be black and white, but, if it wasn't, it was best, as a start up business, to make it one of the typical colors a printer would have.

This is only necessary if the logo is going to be printed. Alot of times a logo is needed for a site, and if its all strictly digital then you do not need to worry about the printing options. If you are printing it, then you have to worry about CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Density) as those are the 3 colors your printer actually prints (black is not a color, it is the density of the image). Luckily, Photoshop (and I'm sure others) allow you to design in CMYK as opposed to RGB (red green, and blue - the colors your monitors show).

it had to work with all those different sizes, too.

When designing an image that will be used in multiple sizes, its always best to start big. Big images can be shrunk with minimal loss of resolution, but enlarging a small image distorts it heavily. Photoshop resizes really well, so if I am designing an image that will be used in multiple sizes, I generally start out with double the largest known size (i.e. If the largest known size is 400x100, I will design it at 800x200). Also, save it as a .PSD (in Photoshop), and save it as a Vector File (.EFS). Vector files are better for enlarging to print on vinyl.

it was just something to identify the service or product line, from all the others, rather then confusing it with the tag line. An icon kinda thing, rather then the the entire explanation.

A tagline, or slogan, is generally smaller than the main logo, which in most cases in this contest it was. It is not necessary to have a slogan included within the logo (the current SR logo doesnt include it), but for print purposes it brings together the brand recognition and the slogan of the company.

a nice, simple, clean, business-like, but more of a casual-Friday style, then a button-down style. Weren't the logos supposed to go along with what Site Reference has already decided it would be? I'm just confused on what all the fuss is about?! If the client already has a style, isn't the graphic design supposed to reflect that style? I don't see the two winning logos as anything short of doing what the client would want.

The logos could be anything the creator wished. One of the beauties of the human mind is how different one thing is translated in the minds of many different people. The logo didnt necessarily have to match or look like the one SR currently has. It can look like anything the creator imagines it to look like. Sure, different colors, shapes, and sizes invoke different emotions on the viewers, but that wasnt really the focus of this contest. It was really to bring out the creativity of some of the users here, as graphic design is an important part of the online world but a rarely discussed topic here.

the next contest, we'll all know what to look for, and...

Well, what you are looking for is what you like. What design reflects YOUR attitude toward Site Reference. There will never be one that every single person agrees upon, its more of your personal preference.

we can learn why we'd be well advise to use you the next time we need a logo created!

Well, it is always good to shop around. Find a reasonably priced designer who knows what he/she is talking about. Looking at previous works is always good.

There are places around that charge WAY too much for graphic work. Since I do not try to make my living off of it, I generally charge $20 - $50, depending on what is needed. That is just me, however, there are others that are more or less expensive.

This really wasn't to showcase professional designers' talents so much as just a fun thing to do.


I hope that kind of clears things up a little for everyone! Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks

I would just like to thank Mark for taking the time to do the contest...the turnout was great and the designs were fantastic!  Thanks again mark for taking the time to moderate the contest!