Item — HN Reader

These logos aren't good. A logo should have some degree of symmetry, simple enough to draw, original, and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.

this is an umbrella plus tear drop: http://www.logodust.com/img/logo18.png

paperclip http://www.logodust.com/img/logo20.png

too complicated to be effective:

http://www.logodust.com/img/logo9.png

ripoff of star trek and anarchy circle

http://www.logodust.com/img/logo2.png

this was the only good one http://www.logodust.com/img/logo1.png

7 comments

> and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.

I appreciate some of your other points, but I particularly disagree with that one. Counterexamples right off the top of my head: Apple, Lacoste, Shell, Camel, Pringles, McDonalds, Schwarzkopf, Puma, Interflora....

Just like domain names should be short, pronounceable, .com, memorisable, etc. Good luck with that buddy.

> These logos aren't good.

For a Fortune 500? Sure not.

For someone with problems much bigger than slick branding they are good enough.

The quality varies a lot with these logos like anything, particularly when scaled down to tiny sizes, but some are really nice.

The paperclip one would be great for company that gets you paperclips, _fast_.

> A logo should ...

Why?

Let me un-ellipses the quote so we can make some sense of things.

> A logo should (...) have some degree of symmetry, simple enough to draw, original, and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.

Symmetry is valued by us humans as a positive aesthetic.

Simplicity aids in recall.

Originality aids in brand recognition.

Those are some whys.

The last one, that you say is good, is very similar to the Kodi logo http://kodi.wiki/images/1/10/Thumbnail-dark.png

Also probably too close for comfort to the git logo: http://git-scm.com/images/logo.png

I would never get "paperclip" from that second one.