MontyDoggo

Logos are supposed to be recognizable and popping. Scratch's logo isn't that recognizable, and looks rather boring, which ruins the entire point of a logo.. I've created some new logo concepts that better fit the site, and still is colorful and vibrant.

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/391512146/

qrcool

Can you please give information why this should happen? All of your post is subjective. Please specify what doesnt work with the current logo, and what does, along with some objective reasoning. Your post alone is not enough to show others why this needs to happen.

MontyDoggo

qrcool wrote:

Can you please give information why this should happen? All of your post is subjective. Please specify what doesnt work with the current logo, and what does, along with some objective reasoning. Your post alone is not enough to show others why this needs to happen.
To rephrase, I believe Scratch deserves a new logo because it doesn't represent anything about the site. A new logo would help the site become more recognizable, and make it unique.

fdreerf



What do these logos represent? They aren't symbols, they're just words, and the logos everyone knows are just a stylized version of the first letter of these.

MontyDoggo

fdreerf wrote:

|||

What do these logos represent? They aren't symbols, they're just words, and the logos everyone knows are just a stylized version of the first letter of these.
Those are only exceptions to those rules, as they are because they're integrated so much into our lives, that we just recognize it's logo. However, Scratch is simply not the case.

fdreerf

MontyDoggo wrote:

Those are only exceptions to those rules, as they are because they're integrated so much into our lives, that we just recognize it's logo. However, Scratch is simply not the case.
There are probably a million other logos that are just words.
They even have their own Wikipedia page.
Plus, my examples pretty much had the same type of logo since their inception, back when nobody knew what they were.

MontyDoggo

fdreerf wrote:

MontyDoggo wrote:

Those are only exceptions to those rules, as they are because they're integrated so much into our lives, that we just recognize it's logo. However, Scratch is simply not the case.
There are probably a million other logos that are just words.
They even have their own Wikipedia page.
Plus, my examples pretty much had the same type of logo since their inception, back when nobody knew what they were.
Logos and Wordmarks are completely different things, and Scratch's wordmark is apparently their “logo”.

fdreerf

“The wordmark is one of several different types of logos, and is among the most common.” -Wikipedia page I linked

qrcool

Just a note, which logo are you talking about? The newer one on the front page, or the older one in the forums?

K02119

No Support, The Current One is Perfectly Fine.

MontyDoggo

qrcool wrote:

Just a note, which logo are you talking about? The newer one on the front page, or the older one in the forums?
Both.

fdreerf

Besides, what will it even be?
We'd have to change something that has been around as long as Scratch has.
It'd have to representative of the entire site has a whole.
It has to be very simple as to fit on the page and be scaled.
It has to be memorable.

I say just keep the old one. When you see it, you think of Scratch. You may not think of a child's programming language, but you think of Scratch.

Super_Scratch_Bros20

I'd have to agree with @fdreerf on this one. But what I was thinking upon this point:

Why is it important to change it, exactly? It won't change any of the content of Scratch. It doesn't concern me very much. I care more about the content of Scratch rather than how it looks.

MontyDoggo

fdreerf wrote:

Besides, what will it even be?
We'd have to change something that has been around as long as Scratch has.
It'd have to representative of the entire site has a whole.
It has to be very simple as to fit on the page and be scaled.
It has to be memorable.

I say just keep the old one. When you see it, you think of Scratch. You may not think of a child's programming language, but you think of Scratch.
I made one design before. https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/391512146/ It's not a normal wordmark, it has a “hand-crafted” look to it, as all Scratch projects are hand-crafted.

fdreerf

MontyDoggo wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Besides, what will it even be?
We'd have to change something that has been around as long as Scratch has.
It'd have to representative of the entire site has a whole.
It has to be very simple as to fit on the page and be scaled.
It has to be memorable.

I say just keep the old one. When you see it, you think of Scratch. You may not think of a child's programming language, but you think of Scratch.
I made one design before. https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/391512146/ It's not a normal wordmark, it has a “hand-crafted” look to it, as all Scratch projects are hand-crafted.
I think the normal logo looks handcrafted; like letters cut out and pasted.

MontyDoggo

fdreerf wrote:

MontyDoggo wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Besides, what will it even be?
We'd have to change something that has been around as long as Scratch has.
It'd have to representative of the entire site has a whole.
It has to be very simple as to fit on the page and be scaled.
It has to be memorable.

I say just keep the old one. When you see it, you think of Scratch. You may not think of a child's programming language, but you think of Scratch.
I made one design before. https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/391512146/ It's not a normal wordmark, it has a “hand-crafted” look to it, as all Scratch projects are hand-crafted.
I think the normal logo looks handcrafted; like letters cut out and pasted.
I don't honestly agree. It looks more like bouncy letters with an outline around them in my opinion. Because that's literally what they are.

Super_Scratch_Bros20

MontyDoggo wrote:

-partial snip-
I don't honestly agree. It looks more like bouncy letters with an outline around them in my opinion. Because that's literally what they are.

Yes. It looks like a kid designed it. That's the point. If everything looked too professional, it may not even look like it's for kids. But you still haven't answered my question: why change the logo? What's the point?

WindOctahedron

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

But you still haven't answered my question: why change the logo? What's the point?
I think that it's already been answered in the original post:

MontyDoggo wrote:

Logos are supposed to work as symbols and be a way so people can recognize something. Scratch's logo doesn't represent anything, isn't that recognizable, and looks rather boring, which is entirely the exact opposite thing a logo is supposed to do. We need a new logo that actually represents the coding with blocks aspect of the site, or something similar. I don't care. Just please redesign the site's logo.
In other words, the logo just needs to be improved, because it's not representative enough.

MeowyTitan08

edited cause its kinda cringey

MontyDoggo

MeowyTitan08 wrote:

-snip-

Once again, let me re-mention a post from earlier.

MontyDoggo wrote:

Those are only exceptions to those rules, as they are because they're integrated so much into our lives, that we just recognize it's logo. However, Scratch is simply not the case.