Help Me Identify a Bird

Re: Logo Contest - AND THE WINNER IS

Mitchell Waite — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:56:02 GMT

Your right, the new logo is not like any of the others. And its a little out of place with the rest of the site, I just put it on the home page to allow people to see it. The rest of the site needs to be redesigned to fit with it.

Regarding the icons in the poll, the "others" (reminds me of Lost) were simple that is true, but they all lacked one thing - universal recognition. A question mark with a beak is cool, I agree, and yes its simple, but to someone seeing it for the first time, with no context, it means nothing. Many people did not see the beak as a beak - they saw something else.

I get you dont like the orange color, but orange is complementary to blue on the color wheel. It may go, so ignore that for now.

I dont find it too "busy". And it transfers just fine, here is how it would look as a gray mark:

Your "elderly" comment could be taken the wrong way by people that are older (like me for example). But I dont see the magnifying glass as something only old people use. Detectives use it, scientists use it, etc. Binoculars? I see your point but I still think the magnifying glass is a better icon, more universal. In fact most web site search engines use it on the search button. Never seen binoculars used for that :)

The fonts are different in the gray mark, larger and stronger to handle the smaller size. Here is one for your web site:

Anyway I very much appreciate your thoughts and while we dont see eye to eye on everything that is okay, its not a perfect world.

Re: Logo Contest - AND THE WINNER IS

Birdfreak — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:02:14 GMT

I like the logo but it seems not at all like any of the others. This is odd only because the others seemed to follow a pattern of being simpler and to the point. This new logo is complicated and "busy". The colors are all wrong... if anything the text should match the same color scheme as the bird and the slogan being that orange color is just ugly and out of place. I don't mean to be too critical because I love the website, I just feel that plopping in a new logo without matching up the web design makes it look even odder.

What I do like is the hummingbird which I'm glad you kept. While I kinda like the magnifying glass, it has a certain "elderly" appeal to it (I won't explain beyond that)....bins would be a much better choice. It also isn't a logo that would seem to transfer well... how can I link the logo on my website when I need to resize it to a smaller size??

Just some thoughts... I'm not a professional designer and I don't mean to diss the logo, but I personally give it about a 4 out of 10. Compared to the old logo, probably only a 2 out of 10.

Re: Logo Contest - AND THE WINNER IS

Cataclysmic Beefstick — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:32:33 GMT

Yeah I noticed the new logo and interface. It looks nice.

Re: Logo Contest - AND THE WINNER IS

Mitchell Waite — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:30:24 GMT

Well we have a logo. And its not one of the logos voted on. Figures. Long story made short. A member of the whatbird forum left a comment that none of the logos looked right to her, in her own words "I'm a graphic designer who has designed numerous consumer brand and corporate logos for both print and web and I find all of these options mediocre and in need of refinement. I find the choices of type, color, and scale unappealing in each concept. I think the most popular one is such because its simplicity violates fewer asethetic considerations; however, the typeface used in that version is weak for a brand/logo and the color choices are not ideal for both print and web."

So I contacted this person who turned out to be a fabulous designer (highly recommened). She offere to come up with a solution, and here it is:

LOGO CREDITS: THE HALLER COMPANY: http://www.hallercompany.com/

I have incorporated this logo into our home page: www.whatbird.com.

I am sure you will all have your comments, you may not like it. But it does something none of the other logos do...take away the text fron the other logos so all you have left is a ? with a beak. While that is certainly clever, what does it mean? Heather's logo with a magnifying glass over the word "bird" says it all, no need to read a thing. Whatbird.com is simply a domain name.

The tag line "More than Match" is my idea and I am not sure its that great. Many people tell me "The Ultimate Bird Guide" is better but even that is not enough.

So perhaps my next contest will be coming up with a good tag line. Heather thinks it should be something that says "search engine". Anyway I diverge.

I am incredibly grateful to everyone who particapate in this poll. The comments and voting actually helped a lot.

Mitch

Re: Logo Contest

featherbrain — Tue, 22 May 2007 00:49:29 GMT

I think you should make a new logo with ? as .com and I really love the way #6 has Bird standing out (by being a different color), with Bird standing out, it tells you what the website is about immediately.

Re: Logo Contest

Mitchell Waite — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:02:36 GMT

Thanks for the ideas! I like the one about the .com and the duck a lot.

Re: Logo Contest

Smile4Katie — Thu, 17 May 2007 19:16:05 GMT

Mitchell Waite:
We need help picking our new logo. Please vote for your favorite in the poll below. DONT CLICK ON A GRAPHIC - GO TO THE BOTTOM WHERE THE VOTE BUTTONS ARE. YOU MUST BE LOGGED IN TO VOTE.

I think that the lettering in #6 really sets off the title

I like the ? as .com I just think it needs to be brought up a bit, sorta like #7 but the bird needs to be different

I actually like #2 but I think it leans towards the duck to much, but what if you set it up the same way with the bird beak to the left and incorperated the com into the body somehow???????? You could almost write it in I don't know just a thought :)

By the way I am totally new here but think this is the best site for birding I have EVER been too I found out what my bird was on the first try, it was so easy!!!

I Think if you get the right one they can be used on clothing/hats just with out a bottom slogan

Re: Logo Contest

Birdfreak — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:47:39 GMT

I do not like #5 because it is too plain and doesn't tell you what the site is about... but if you are talking about using the exact same logo for the website AND materials like hats, shirts, etc. I think two logos would be needed... a nice design like #2 for the website and just the bird for hats and shirts. I don't know if I would use the hummingbird because it is commonly used on other sites and mediums but it does look cool (on the current logo)... ever thought of using a bird like a Cuckoo, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, or maybe a cool looking warbler? Black-throated Blue would look great and the colors would look sharp for the words.

Just some extra thoughts.

Re: Logo Contest

Mitchell Waite — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:05:57 GMT

Smile4Katie:

I agree.

Not a designer though :)

Personally I think that there is some things that should be a definite inclusion

1-WhatBird = Capitalize both words to make them more distinct

2- ?com = I think that the question mark as the dot is a great idea!

3 - I do like the "bird" in #5 but not the overall feel I think that the lettering is to soft and not striking enough

4 - colors = really I think that the same color base as the current humingbird will make for a good transition as well as the fact that they are "nature" colors, blues and greens!

Thanks a bunch for asking for opinions!

These are really good tips. Regarding your #2 you dont think that WhatBird?com looks funny? The problem with #5 from a logo point of view is that the fine lines will drop out when used in different mediums, think hats, tee shirts, etc. Plus I am just not enamored with the script type of writing. Yes colors need to be compatible with the hummingbird, I agree totally. Anything else will clash.

Re: Logo Contest

Smile4Katie — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:43:42 GMT

aitchaitch:

I guess I'm the odd one out here.

I'm a graphic designer who has designed numerous consumer brand and corporate logos for both print and web and I find all of these options mediocre and in need of refinement. I find the choices of type, color, and scale unappealing in each concept. I think the most popular one is such because its simplicity violates fewer asethetic considerations; however, the typeface used in that version is weak for a brand/logo and the color choices are not ideal for both print and web.

The presented choices are either too busy or visually weak and appear to be first pass renditions. I realize everyone has their opinion and my intent is not to offend the designer, but to suggest that perhaps the presented options can be refined by exploring differnet color and type treatments for each and revisiting the position, space, and relative scale of the elements in each.

I agree.

Not a designer though :)

Personally I think that there is some things that should be a definite inclusion

1-WhatBird = Capitalize both words to make them more distinct

2- ?com = I think that the question mark as the dot is a great idea!

3 - I do like the "bird" in #5 but not the overall feel I think that the lettering is to soft and not striking enough

4 - colors = really I think that the same color base as the current humingbird will make for a good transition as well as the fact that they are "nature" colors, blues and greens!

Thanks a bunch for asking for opinions!

Re: Logo Contest

Alyce — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:04:40 GMT

Hi:

I like #5. It is simple and classic. It also incorporates all birds, instead of just a certain few. Thanks for letting us share our opinions and vote!

Re: Logo Contest

Ames — Mon, 14 May 2007 00:25:04 GMT

I think I like #4, but I actually do like the current logo best!

Re: Logo Contest

Mitchell Waite — Sun, 13 May 2007 21:42:15 GMT

I would not disagree with any of your comments. They are not finished or refined. I was mainly looking for direction. But it may be that any one of these if done correctly could serve as a logo. The colors are up for grabs too.

I think the most popular one (#5) is because its simple but also because its similar to other birding sites. And it has a clever way of presenting the question mark. These were all done on speculaion from artists abroad who hope to get the job of designing the logo but I am feeling like I need someone with a more profressional track record who does this kind of thing for a living.

Thanks for your insights.

Mitch

Re: Logo Contest

aitchaitch — Sun, 13 May 2007 21:26:44 GMT

I guess I'm the odd one out here.

I'm a graphic designer who has designed numerous consumer brand and corporate logos for both print and web and I find all of these options mediocre and in need of refinement. I find the choices of type, color, and scale unappealing in each concept. I think the most popular one is such because its simplicity violates fewer asethetic considerations; however, the typeface used in that version is weak for a brand/logo and the color choices are not ideal for both print and web.

The presented choices are either too busy or visually weak and appear to be first pass renditions. I realize everyone has their opinion and my intent is not to offend the designer, but to suggest that perhaps the presented options can be refined by exploring differnet color and type treatments for each and revisiting the position, space, and relative scale of the elements in each.

Re: Logo Contest

Birdfreak — Sun, 13 May 2007 21:07:48 GMT

#2 to me just looks more web 2.0 because it reminds me of the popular hip logos of clean website designs like Flickr, Technorati, YouTube, etc. It's the type of logo that looks like it could be transferrable; other websites, blogs, etc. could post graphical links to this site from their's. Most of the logos look pretty good, I just think that is the best.