2009 Logo Contest - The results are in!

[SeNniN]

Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo? Seriously, what purpose does it serve? Never mistake a logo for an art piece, they are two different things entirely

If you removed the background, removed the small text at the bottom (it doesn't really do much tbh) and just left the "AMV" it would actually be pretty decent. Also, the "A" letterform seems a bit narrow compared to the "V", even the weight is totally different.

I think the bg does serve a purpose, for one, its used for getting attention. Take the logo we have now for example, it also has a bg which makes it unique and different, without it, it would be boring. =/
I doubt anyone would look at plain text.. that's just boring.
The whole purpose of the bg was a sort of a sketchy paint look, cuz all editors are artist, so I wanted to express that in the logo.
Originally I wanted to write AMV with a brush my self, but i kinda half assed it..
Anyways, like i said, it's just a concept, not exactly what I wanted, would have looked a lot better if i was competing.
Definitely will be next year.
gl to everyone that competed this year.

[Pas]

Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo? Seriously, what purpose does it serve? Never mistake a logo for an art piece, they are two different things entirely

If you removed the background, removed the small text at the bottom (it doesn't really do much tbh) and just left the "AMV" it would actually be pretty decent. Also, the "A" letterform seems a bit narrow compared to the "V", even the weight is totally different.

I think the bg does serve a purpose, for one, its used for getting attention. Take the logo we have now for example, it also has a bg which makes it unique and different, without it, it would be boring. =/
I doubt anyone would look at plain text.. that's just boring.

Define "boring". What you are implying is that the typography itself is not interesting, which I'd have to disagree with. If anything, it is the typography that catches my interest to begin with.

And secondly, there's a huge difference between "getting attention" and "attracting the right people". A logo represents the company/organization etc. I could write something in comic sans and get attention, but it probably wouldn't be the type of attention I'd want. If the org really wanted peoples attention that badly, we could quite easily replace the current banner for something written in Impact as a .gif with flashing colours and shapes. It wouldn't be the most pleasing logo to be stuck with for the next year, but hell if it wouldn't get peoples attention.

I don't so much believe it's a matter of attention so much as a matter of trying to decide on a logo which best represents the org as not only the organization but also the community that embodies it. Because of this, I really don't mind what one we're stuck with, as it will always be decide on a vote and therefore represent the tastes of the largest majority of people on the org.

All those people complaining about there not being any good logos this year can suck it. None of you even considered making one yourself, so don't bitch now that the opportunity has passed you by

[lynit]

All those people complaining about there not being any good logos this year can suck it. None of you even considered making one yourself, so don't bitch now that the opportunity has passed you by

If critics could dish out what they served, the world would be a scary place

[SeNniN]

Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo? Seriously, what purpose does it serve? Never mistake a logo for an art piece, they are two different things entirely

If you removed the background, removed the small text at the bottom (it doesn't really do much tbh) and just left the "AMV" it would actually be pretty decent. Also, the "A" letterform seems a bit narrow compared to the "V", even the weight is totally different.

I think the bg does serve a purpose, for one, its used for getting attention. Take the logo we have now for example, it also has a bg which makes it unique and different, without it, it would be boring. =/
I doubt anyone would look at plain text.. that's just boring.

Define "boring". What you are implying is that the typography itself is not interesting, which I'd have to disagree with. If anything, it is the typography that catches my interest to begin with.

And secondly, there's a huge difference between "getting attention" and "attracting the right people". A logo represents the company/organization etc. I could write something in comic sans and get attention, but it probably wouldn't be the type of attention I'd want. If the org really wanted peoples attention that badly, we could quite easily replace the current banner for something written in Impact as a .gif with flashing colours and shapes. It wouldn't be the most pleasing logo to be stuck with for the next year, but hell if it wouldn't get peoples attention.

I don't so much believe it's a matter of attention so much as a matter of trying to decide on a logo which best represents the org as not only the organization but also the community that embodies it. Because of this, I really don't mind what one we're stuck with, as it will always be decide on a vote and therefore represent the tastes of the largest majority of people on the org.

All those people complaining about there not being any good logos this year can suck it. None of you even considered making one yourself, so don't bitch now that the opportunity has passed you by

Define "boring".

so lacking in interest as to cause mental weariness.
Got it right off google.

By getting viewers attention, what I meant was that when you log on to the org, it draws your attention towards it, that's all, not to get new users on org. Not sure where you got that idea from.
Simply put, I find text alone boring, Of course, no one said you have to agree with me.
This logo was made for fun, but some ppl just have to act all smart and start unnecessary arguments on the smallest things.

[SeNniN]

my bad, i read that wrong, i thought you meant to attract other users to org.

[Rider4Z]

a logo's a logo, and a vote is a vote. and if we don't get no logos then we don't get no votes.

IOW the majority will decide which will be the next logo because that's what it wants it to be. simple and fair. so let us end the bickering, it all boils down to taste. no one's right or wrong here.

[Nya-chan Production]

a logo's a logo, and a vote is a vote. and if we don't get no logos then we don't get no votes.

IOW the majority will decide which will be the next logo because that's what it wants it to be. simple and fair. so let us end the bickering, it all boils down to taste. no one's right or wrong here.

I am right, you just don't see it.

[Nya-chan Production]

Yay, this year, one of mine actually made the finals!

/shamelessly votes her logo

If I did it how I wanted it (and spent like three hours over it), then it must be right!

[Pas]

I'm gonna be honest here and say I'm really surprised the one I thought would make it (and win) did not even get selected for the finals. Perhaps my tastes are far off the norm

That being said, I can't say I really like any of the logos that made it to the finals and therefore won't even be voting, but good luck to all the contenders!

[DriftRoot]

I think this is the first year I've ever been mostly unsurprised by the logos in the finals...it's nice to see a broad range of designs to choose from.

Anyone with image editing software - and that should be most people, given what we do around here - might experiment a little by applying the final logos to screenshots of the site. That's how I make my final pick.