David-
I agree. Indeed, the current winner should have been
disqualified when
people first raised their objections to it.
And when people raise objections to the runner-up, and to the runner-up to
that logo and so forth? It is completely delusional to believe that it
will be possible to reach consensus on something as subjective as a logo.
No matter what modifications are made, there will always be people who do
not like a concept. Some will always find it too simple, too complex, too
colorful, too bland, too busy, too cliche, too bright, too dark ..
The "clutter" concern is a reasonable one and I share it. We are now
working on improving the logo to address this concern. It would be helpful
if you would join these discussions.
There doesn't seem to have
been made any effort to ensure that the submussions met the
requirements, as if they were merely suggestions.
They were, for the most part. Voters were encouraged to take format and
size requirements into account, but if a logo is an absolutely brilliant
concept, it would be unfair to discard it because it contains some Latin
text, has the wrong output format, is too large etc. -- these things can
be worked on.
I also think that the
fact that currently there are 73 votes on the English Wikipedia
ratification, and 41% are against is a strong sign that there are a lot
of others who agree with me and tarquin.
Many people agree that the puzzle sphere in its current form is not
optimal. I do, too. So let's work on making it better.
I think that in an organization
that prides itself on consensus, some effort should be made to address
the dissenters' concerns.
That's exactly what's happening on Meta right now.
I have gone to the effort of collecting some famous
and successful logos
from around the web and put them at
http://www.nohat.net/logos.html.
This would have been useful when we started the contest.
Regards,
Erik