Chris Saad should have either:

1) Not have been eligible for the contest;

or

2) Not have held a contest in the first place if he wanted his logo considered.

He might have won the voting contest; I don’t dispute that, but I’m calling shenanigans on the integrity of it all.

Do over!!!

http://sabet.tv/photo/photo/sh.....ntext=user

http://sabet.tv/photo/photo/sh.....ntext=user

Let me know how you need more help on the guidelines. or if these are good solutions.

High profile judges from Skype, Yahoo, and professional agencies - participated in a shortlisting. It is wrong to place 403 logos in a public vote, as that is not an effective way to vote, because it will bias the logos on the first few pages. Even the 60 odd logos shortlisted by the judges is too many. Heck - even 15 that the public did vote on, is too many.

When it comes to creativity, everyone has a different perspective because there is no one right answer. Just look at how amazing complex advertising agencies are compared to a legal firm (ad agencies seem to create a new entity for every team of 5 people with their own identity). So we are not ones to challenge a panel of judges with their shortlists - we gave them a job and they exceeded our expectations. They provided individual commentary on the logos, and I would be happy to share some of the aggregate feedback if people think a particular logo was excluded unfairly.

A very thorough evaluation was done of the judges shortlist, which had the logos evaluated against multiple criteria (like potential for lawsuits, scalability concerns, internationalisation, likeness with other submitted logos).

And whilst Don Arrington doesn’t like the logo, that his problem because it won by a huge margin (so I’m told). And the vote was by the general public. Go complain to the 4000 people that participated in the vote, if you have an issue.

The current incarnation of the logo, is ugly as hell. But it’s too highlight the unique look of the logo - visit the DataPortability wiki for alternative versions. As for how the actual logo evolves, this will be based by a special team within the evangelism action group: http://groups.google.com/group.....evangelism

@Ali #42: exactly, with a little love. We are a volunteer outfit, all with full time jobs and families/lives - the DataPortability Project is working on a ridiculous amount of things lest of all trans-continental discussions about more things to do. We could use people like you to help.

High profile judges from Skype, Yahoo, and professional agencies - participated in a shortlisting. It is wrong to place 403 logos in a public vote, as that is not an effective way to vote, because it will bias the logos on the first few pages. Even the 60 odd logos shortlisted by the judges is too many. Heck - even 15 that the public did vote on, is too many.

When it comes to creativity, everyone has a different perspective because there is no one right answer. Just look at how amazing complex advertising agencies are compared to a legal firm (ad agencies seem to create a new entity for every team of 5 people with their own identity). So we are not ones to challenge a panel of judges with their shortlists - we gave them a job and they exceeded our expectations. They provided individual commentary on the logos, and I would be happy to share some of the aggregate feedback if people think a particular logo was excluded unfairly.

A very thorough evaluation was done of the judges shortlist, which had the logos evaluated against multiple criteria (like potential for lawsuits, scalability concerns, internationalisation, likeness with other submitted logos).

And whilst Don Arrington doesn’t like the logo, that his problem because it won by a huge margin (so I’m told). And the vote was by the general public. Go complain to the 4000 people that participated in the vote, if you have an issue.

The current incarnation of the logo, is ugly as hell. But it’s too highlight the unique look of the logo - visit the DataPortability wiki for alternative versions. As for how the actual logo evolves, this will be based by a special team within the evangelism action group: http://groups.google.com/group.....evangelism

@Ali #42: exactly, with a little love. We are a volunteer outfit, all with full time jobs and families/lives - the DataPortability Project is working on a ridiculous amount of things lest of all trans-continental discussions about more things to do. We could use people like you to help.

Is this true?

Good point, let me give it another try.

1. The logo does not communicate anything in any meaningful way (regardless if that is its intent)

2. It is neither attractive nor eye catching. It just has no appeal at all.

Obviously enough people thought it was good or better than all other entries, and these were the rules of this contest.

Being a designer (and a finalist) myself, I see no problem with design contests for non-profits. Designers have a choice of whether they want to participate. I did it for the fun, since I charge more for a logo than the sum of the prizes.

However, it becomes a problem when companies use it as a cheap way to get design work – it downgrade the level of design and it hurts professionals’ ability to charge for quality work.

I would prefer that the choice would be from within all entries (copyright problematic entries excluded), but you can’t always get what you want and it was fun anyway.

Congrats, Alex P.

Some alternative versions: http://flickr.com/photos/22026.....ortability

From the creator:
“Letters p and d are merged by overlapping their round parts and the result then rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise.

Note how gaps between the white parts and the main symbol form implicit arrows. When considered together with a circular shape of the central part, they create a sense of convergent, swirl-like movement. Movement reflects the portability aspect and convergence relates to the universality and amalgamation, which is what DP appears to be about.

Or in plain English — it’s a simple and unique doodle, which is also good looking :)”

thumb down