Plz change the logo to the 1.x logo bcz the 2.0 and the 3.0 logo is bad

The newer logos fit with the current website designs better than the 1.x era one does IMO

and also the newer logo is just the old one with an outline

TheGlassPenguin wrote:

The newer logos fit with the current website designs better than the 1.x era one does IMO

and also the newer logo is just the old one with an outline

Let's wait for new posts before it will become necropost

If this is rejected, add it to the official list of rejected suggestions by Za-Chary

What makes the current logo bad, and the old one better?

Bilipirip wrote:

What makes the current logo bad, and the old one better?

The 1.x logo has a orange and white vertical gradient where the 3.0 logo doesn't

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

Bilipirip wrote:

What makes the current logo bad, and the old one better?

The 1.x logo has a orange and white vertical gradient where the 3.0 logo doesn't

minimalism, which is sad but it makes things more consistent with the rest of the site

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

Bilipirip wrote:

What makes the current logo bad, and the old one better?

The 1.x logo has a orange and white vertical gradient where the 3.0 logo doesn't

You can still see it, it's in the top-left corner of every old page, including the forums.

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

Bilipirip wrote:

What makes the current logo bad, and the old one better?

The 1.x logo has a orange and white vertical gradient where the 3.0 logo doesn't

I could make the claim that the 1.x logo is the worse one and that the 3.0 logo is the better for that very reason. You really wouldn't be able to disprove my claim because its a matter of opinion, just like I can't disprove your claim since it is, again, a matter of opinion.

Basing your suggestions off of things that pertain only to you (and are, in this case, frivolous at best) isn't a very good methodology for making suggestions, especially when you don't have very much reasoning.

glomeromycota wrote:

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

Bilipirip wrote:

What makes the current logo bad, and the old one better?

The 1.x logo has a orange and white vertical gradient where the 3.0 logo doesn't

minimalism, which is sad but it makes things more consistent with the rest of the site

I wouldn't call the 3.0 design minimalist. After all, it does consist of two outlines, one that's thick and white and one that's thinner and orange, and the word, “Scratch”, in white lettering.

no support. the existing logo fits the site and is more consistent with the sites design. the 1.0 logo is from so long ago I doubt anyone will remember it

Thanks for the suggestion - but it appears to be based on opinion rather than any reasoned argument how it will improve Scratch.