Why? We are now exactly in the situtation that the
winning logo does not
scale very good to small sizes!
That depends on what you mean by small size. The puzzle sphere was
uploaded in 150x150, the required size for the logo is 135x135. It
certainly scaled to that size. There was no requirement that the logo
would scale to, say, 32x32 and, as has been pointed out, most brands do
not properly scale to that size either, which is why favicons are usually
abstractions. (An abstract version of the puzzle sphere would probably
make a pretty nice favicon, but I do not like the current favicon
Except for logo 11, all of the finalists were within the required
dimensions and proportions, and I provided a scaled down version of logo
11 on that logo's discussion page. This shows that voters played the role
of checking the requirements.
If they all would have the same size from
the beginning, they would be better comparable, and the logo pages could
have been downloaded faster.
While that would certainly have helped, it is highly doubtful that, with
over 130 submissions and many more variants, all logos would have fit on a
single loadable page even if they were all of the same dimensions.
When you enforce limits very strictly, you will create other problems --
artists may be scared away by what they perceive as a dictatorial process,
or they may not even understand what is going on (many of the submitters
were newbies). I don't think enforcing logo sizes would have made a
substantial enough impact to justify that. And, frankly, it would have
been a lot of work.
I'm talking about the first round(!), where the
logos were ranked
according to the time they got in.
I don't see the alternative. As noted above, enforcing logo sizes would
not have made a relevant impact here -- there are simply too many logos
for that. Random ranking has the same (mostly theoretical) problems.
1) I doubt that too many people did download page
downloading page 1-25 already took a long time, 25-50 again a long time and
so on. You get the point?
Yes, but I doubt that it is true. Among the finalists, logo 4 was number
126 on the original list. Logo 5 was number 129. Logo 6 was number 97.
Logo 11 was number 124. So we clearly have plenty of late logos among the
finalists. And their ranking in the first round correlates fairly well
with their ranking in the second round.
But I do believe that approval voting is more susceptible to this problem
than average voting, where the number of voters does not matter much. In a
future contest, it might make more sense to have only one voting round,
although I shudder at the size of the ballot page that would result.
2) New logos were added at the end, while the first
logos were already
visible. I am not sure any more, if they also were already votable, which
would make it worse. But, what really *does* matter: The Logos on the first
pages had more time to sink into the brains of people.
What does "sinking in" mean? There is no evidence that I would rate a logo
higher if I've already seen it two months ago. Logo #1 got 3 votes total.
Logo #136, which in my opinion is much worse because it is completely
unusable, got 7 votes.
The two three highest scoring logos are to be found on
That proves absolutely nothing. It is quite obvious that many people with
a high motivation to produce a great logo will be among the first wave of
submitters. And indeed, if you look at the amount of work that has been
invested by Neolux, Anthere and Paullusmagnus in their logos, the number
of variants etc., it is much higher than that of most logos which came
is also the example of the logo contest, to be found on the top page of the
Huh? What do you mean with example? Which page?
> They weren't.
We first had 10 final candidates, we then had 11.
That was the unfortunate result of unexpected logo swapping, as explained
on the logo page.
First everyone could vote
(in the first round), than only people with user pages (also in the first
All votes were counted in the first round, regardless of userpage or not;
what was necessary was a sig-type vote [[User:Foo]] or even
[[de:Benutzer:Foo]], but it didn't matter whether it pointed to an
existing user page or not. That rule was changed for the second stage.
There was no change of rules in mid process.
And so on.
And so on what?