Hi, You can see the latest logo contest tally here: http://boost.org/more/logo_contest_tally.htm As of March 7, 2005: Votes Entry 6 38, Simeon Nasilowski 5 67, Simeon Nasilowski 4 39, Simeon Nasilowski 4 75, Zoltan "cad" Juhasz 3 83, Emil Kirichev 3 85, Ben Hetland 3 92, Aleksey Gurtovoy 2 18, Boost 2 Jonathan Turkanis 2 52, Zoltan "cad" Juhasz 2 60, Banu Alexandru 2 68, Aleksey Gurtovoy 1 1, Boost 1 13, René Rivera 1 20, Jonathan Turkanis 1 23, Jonathan Turkanis 1 29, Erik Wien 1 3, Joaquín M López Muñoz 1 30, Erik Wien 1 62, Mike H 1 97, Jonathan Turkanis 1 18, Jonathan Turkanis Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Hi,
You can see the latest logo contest tally here:
http://boost.org/more/logo_contest_tally.htm
As of March 7, 2005:
Perhaps it's a purely academic point, but it appears there are two separate entries for #18:
2 18, Boost 2 Jonathan Turkanis
1 18, Jonathan Turkanis
Regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Hi,
You can see the latest logo contest tally here:
http://boost.org/more/logo_contest_tally.htm
As of March 7, 2005:
Perhaps it's a purely academic point, but it appears there are two separate entries for #18:
2 18, Boost 2 Jonathan Turkanis
1 18, Jonathan Turkanis
Fixed. Thanks for spotting that, Jonathan. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Hi,
You can see the latest logo contest tally here:
http://boost.org/more/logo_contest_tally.htm
As of March 7, 2005:
Votes Entry 6 38, Simeon Nasilowski 5 67, Simeon Nasilowski 4 39, Simeon Nasilowski 4 75, Zoltan "cad" Juhasz 3 83, Emil Kirichev 3 85, Ben Hetland 3 92, Aleksey Gurtovoy 2 18, Boost 2 Jonathan Turkanis 2 52, Zoltan "cad" Juhasz 2 60, Banu Alexandru 2 68, Aleksey Gurtovoy 1 1, Boost 1 13, René Rivera 1 20, Jonathan Turkanis 1 23, Jonathan Turkanis 1 29, Erik Wien 1 3, Joaquín M López Muñoz 1 30, Erik Wien 1 62, Mike H 1 97, Jonathan Turkanis 1 18, Jonathan Turkanis
Regards,
I'd like to see Jonathan's 20 and 23 on higher ranks. Who is taking the bribes? ^^ Just kidding. -- Matthias Kaeppler
Matthias Kaeppler <nospam@digitalraid.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Hi, You can see the latest logo contest tally here: http://boost.org/more/logo_contest_tally.htm As of March 7, 2005: Votes Entry 6 38, Simeon Nasilowski 5 67, Simeon Nasilowski 4 39, Simeon Nasilowski 4 75, Zoltan "cad" Juhasz 3 83, Emil Kirichev 3 85, Ben Hetland 3 92, Aleksey Gurtovoy 2 18, Boost 2 Jonathan Turkanis 2 52, Zoltan "cad" Juhasz 2 60, Banu Alexandru 2 68, Aleksey Gurtovoy 1 1, Boost 1 13, René Rivera 1 20, Jonathan Turkanis 1 23, Jonathan Turkanis 1 29, Erik Wien 1 3, Joaquín M López Muñoz 1 30, Erik Wien 1 62, Mike H 1 97, Jonathan Turkanis 1 18, Jonathan Turkanis Regards,
I'd like to see Jonathan's 20 and 23 on higher ranks. Who is taking the bribes? ^^
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears. In fact, obviously, it will make my life easier to just do one tally. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [boost] Re: Logo Contest Current Tally
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears.
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list. - CD
christopher diggins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com>
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears.
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list.
I was hoping Boost folks are more inteligent than that! Be reminded that boost has always been holding public library reviews and taking in votes, for or against the acceptance of a library, all publicly and progresively in the duration of the review. Yes, there's a disadvantage in that approach. However, I tend to believe and trust that people in boost are intelligent enough not to be swayed by what's popular. If we weren't, we could have all gone Java with all its hype! That said, I respect your opinion and the opinion of others. I'll wait a bit for others. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Cc: <boost-users@lists.boost.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 12:33 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Logo Contest Current Tally
christopher diggins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com>
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears.
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list.
I was hoping Boost folks are more inteligent than that!
This has nothing to do with intelligence, but rather with the fact that people who vote later can have more influence on the outcome than people who vote early. I think a running tally is undemocratic and undermines the whole point of using IRV. Christopher Diggins Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL) http://www.ootl.org
christopher diggins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman"
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list.
I was hoping Boost folks are more inteligent than that!
This has nothing to do with intelligence, but rather with the fact that people who vote later can have more influence on the outcome than people who vote early. I think a running tally is undemocratic and undermines the whole point of using IRV.
I disagree with your assumption that "People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates". This assumption is simply flawed. I also disagree with your statement that "This has nothing to do with intelligence". Of course it has. People here at boost are very opinionated, which comes with high intelligence. I am 100% confident that people here will not by swayed by the currently posted top candidates. Boost folks *are* trend setters, not dumb followers. As a small experiment, I showed my wife the current tally, and later, the candidates in full. I asked her for her preference. Interestingly, her choice was not in the top 10 of the list. Of course this small experiment is not conclusive. I think the real issue here is discussion about preferences. Such discussions, might potentially have some influence on how people will vote. But we already agreed, from the start, that such discussions are ok. I personally do not see anything wrong with that. Stefan Seefeld, IMO, sums it all up nicely: ''' Opinions aren't sacred, they can (and should) be argued about. Let's trust in civilized and constructive discussion which this list has proven to be good at in the past. ''' Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I think the real issue here is discussion about preferences. Such discussions, might potentially have some influence on how people will vote. But we already agreed, from the start, that such discussions are ok. I personally do not see anything wrong with that.
So who's going to break the ice? Jonathan
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I think the real issue here is discussion about preferences. Such discussions, might potentially have some influence on how people will vote. But we already agreed, from the start, that such discussions are ok. I personally do not see anything wrong with that.
So who's going to break the ice?
Ok, WRT the progressive tally, while I do not agree with Christopher Diggins and Gennadiy's reasons, I decided to stop it. My reasons are simply that 1) people are not enthusiastic about it and 2) not doing it will lessen my work, in fact. I was under the impression that people will be appreciative of the additional effort. Clearly, I was wrong. After meditating on it, it's not worth the trouble. WRT discussion about preferences, I assert that there's totally nothing wrong with it. I think posting the tally progressively will initiate constructive discussion. But surely, there are less controversial ways to stimulate discussion. So, I welcome anyone who wish to discuss anything (subjective or objective) relating to the logos. This is the boost way. Will such discussions have an effect on the outcome? Sure, but I don't see anything wrong with that. I think that's healthy. Now, for those who wish to change their minds, you can resend your votes. I also don't see anything wrong with that. I'll make sure each person gets only his latest vote into the final tally. And, in light of recent events, and in the hope that we'll have more discussions following this, I shall extend the schedule to March 22, one week after the original March 15 deadline for accepting votes. I believe what we are doing now is very important. Let's do this right. Jonathan, I believe you have something to say? You are welcome to start the discussion. Finally, I still welcome anyone who wish to do an independent tally. C'mon guys, this won't take too much of your time. If you plan on contributing something back to boost, this is an easy chance! Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Finally, I still welcome anyone who wish to do an independent tally. C'mon guys, this won't take too much of your time. If you plan on contributing something back to boost, this is an easy chance!
Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
I'll be happy to do a tally count. I haven't made anything useful for boost, but taken so much, so I should help in some way. :) kalin
kalin wrote:
Finally, I still welcome anyone who wish to do an independent tally. C'mon guys, this won't take too much of your time. If you plan on contributing something back to boost, this is an easy chance!
Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
I'll be happy to do a tally count. I haven't made anything useful for boost, but taken so much, so I should help in some way. :)
Thank you Kalin! I appreciate that a lot. I'll email you privately to discuss this. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I think the real issue here is discussion about preferences. Such discussions, might potentially have some influence on how people will vote. But we already agreed, from the start, that such discussions are ok. I personally do not see anything wrong with that.
So who's going to break the ice?
Here goes: One of the most important challenges for us to deal with in the next few years is raising Boost's level of professionalism, both in practice and in image (**). The logo should project solidity and refinement. In this department, number 67 stood head and shoulders above the rest for me. It is also memorable and easily iconifiable. The next most-likely candidate for me was 68a, closely followed by 75c, suitably modified. Most of the others didn't even come close in my opinion. Having given them a second look after noticing them in the upper ranks of the voting, 38 and 39 look better to me than they did initially, but they still have a fundamental problem: they project the connotation of a child's toy blocks. While that has a certain appeal in projecting "ease-of-use" and "component software," it has obvious negative overtones in my opinion. The 83 series, BTW, ranked fairly high on my professionalism scale, but seemed to be more appropriate for a photographic services or printing company or a music company, and the retro lettering, while pretty, perhaps makes too much of a statement. In my opinion, getting "C++" or "::" into the logo design as graphic elements is of very little importance (***). Most of the designs that do that seem to be too clever by half, which is distracting and looks somewhat amateurish in the end. I realize I was probably responsible for planting that seed. Sorry, but what can I say? I'm not a skilled logo designer, and I know it -- which is why I only made one submission, and that was only to stimulate thought. Probably the reason the FedEx logo works is that it's really subtle. (**) I believe it's neccessary in order to increase adoption, which I think is crucial for us. These are my values; of course you might disagree. (***) I do think it's important to have the words "Boost" and "C++ Libraries" in there somewhere, but not neccessarily as graphic elements. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
So who's going to break the ice?
Here goes:
Darn! You beat me.
One of the most important challenges for us to deal with in the next few years is raising Boost's level of professionalism, both in practice and in image (**). The logo should project solidity and refinement.
Yes.
In this department, number 67 stood head and shoulders above the rest for me. It is also memorable and easily iconifiable. The next
I didn't say it, but it did convey professionalism to me. Good point.
most-likely candidate for me was 68a, closely followed by 75c, suitably modified. Most of the others didn't even come close in my opinion.
68a wasn't logo material to me. There was nothing that could be extracted as an icon, and the lack of any kind of color makes it far too subdued. It would simply be lost on a web page, for example. 75c's graphical element connotes nothing but paper to me. Since Boost isn't a paper company, that doesn't fit Boost to me. Also, itwill not look good without a great deal of color depth and it certainly won't be meaningful as an icon.
Having given them a second look after noticing them in the upper ranks of the voting, 38 and 39 look better to me than they did initially, but they still have a fundamental problem: they project the connotation of a child's toy blocks. While that has a certain appeal in projecting "ease-of-use" and "component software," it has obvious negative overtones in my opinion.
That's what bothered me! That's also why I liked 67: the blocks were abstract, not toy-like.
The 83 series, BTW, ranked fairly high on my professionalism scale, but seemed to be more appropriate for a photographic services or printing company or a music company, and the retro lettering, while pretty, perhaps makes too much of a statement.
That's why I thought changing the color wheel to a single hue would be helpful.
In my opinion, getting "C++" or "::" into the logo design as graphic elements is of very little importance (***). Most of the designs that do that seem to be too clever by half, which is distracting and looks somewhat amateurish in the end. I realize I was probably responsible
Exactly. I *really* liked Jonathan's syringe idea (#88), but couldn't bring myself to vote for it because it didn't convey a good, professional image.
for planting that seed. Sorry, but what can I say? I'm not a skilled logo designer, and I know it -- which is why I only made one submission, and that was only to stimulate thought. Probably the reason the FedEx logo works is that it's really subtle.
I'll say it's subtle. There's capitalizes on a common abbreviation that allowed them to combine two very short "words" into one, yet distinguish the "words" by color. The result is a *pronounceable* new word so the juxtaposition causes no reading problems. We can't do the same, and attempts to do so simply fail.
(***) I do think it's important to have the words "Boost" and "C++ Libraries" in there somewhere, but not neccessarily as graphic elements.
"Boost," yes. "C++ Libraries," no. I think there should be a tag line, but I don't think it has to be "C++ Libraries." -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I disagree with your assumption that "People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates". This assumption is simply flawed. I also disagree with your statement that "This has nothing to do with intelligence". Of course it has.
You are wrong on both counts. Statement #1 is true because people may only look at the tally page. Statement #2 is true because this is due to lack of time, not lack of intelligence.
Peter Dimov wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I disagree with your assumption that "People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates". This assumption is simply flawed. I also disagree with your statement that "This has nothing to do with intelligence". Of course it has.
You are wrong on both counts. Statement #1 is true because people may only look at the tally page. Statement #2 is true because this is due to lack of time, not lack of intelligence.
Ehm, you are missing an "in my opinion" there somewhere ;-) Ok, I respect your opinion. It's just not true, IMO. I certainly don't fall under that catogory, and I have a strong belief in the people here at boost. I repeat again, I have a firm belief that the people here at boost *are* trend setters, *not* dumb followers, as those statements suggest. Lack of time? C'mon! You can do better than that. We spend lots of time doing free work! Choosing a logo is a very important task for someone *intelligent* enough to grasp the significance of such a thing. And, needless to say, Boost folks *are* intelligent. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I disagree with your assumption that "People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates". This assumption is simply flawed. I also disagree with your statement that "This has nothing to do with intelligence". Of course it has.
You are wrong on both counts. Statement #1 is true because people may only look at the tally page. Statement #2 is true because this is due to lack of time, not lack of intelligence.
Ehm, you are missing an "in my opinion" there somewhere ;-)
No, I am not. This is not an opinion, it is a fact, although the sample size (1) is a bit small.
christopher diggins <cdiggins@videotron.ca> writes:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [boost] Re: Logo Contest Current Tally
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears.
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list.
Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why not this time? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why not this time?
I strongly agree. Opinions aren't sacred, they can (and should) be argued about. Let's trust in civilized and constructive discussion which this list has proven to be good at in the past. Regards, Stefan
David Abrahams wrote:
christopher diggins <cdiggins@videotron.ca> writes:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [boost] Re: Logo Contest Current Tally
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears.
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list.
Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why not this time?
Exactly my point! Let's step back and think about it. What we are doing now (logo contest) is basically a continuation of what's already taking place here at boost since the very beginning: public consensus. It's just that I didn't want to overwhelm the list's traffic that I decided to open an email account for taking in votes. Anyway, as this seems controversial, I temporarily suspended the ongoing tally awaiting consensus on how best to proceed. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
David Abrahams wrote:
People who have not yet voted are now more likely vote for the currently posted top candidates. I for one would have voted differently now than before, please remove the list.
Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why not this time?
I think it's beneficial to discuss this stuff here. For example, I really like logo XXX, but I think the current background color makes it a poor choice. We've already tentatively agreed that color changes can be made after acceptance, but if I find out that people who voted for XXX love the current background color, then I'm I'm inclined not to vote for it since it likely won't be changed after acceptance. Jonathan
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
David Abrahams wrote:
Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why not this time?
I think it's beneficial to discuss this stuff here. For example, I really like logo XXX, but I think the current background color makes it a poor choice. We've already tentatively agreed that color changes can be made after acceptance, but if I find out that people who voted for XXX love the current background color, then I'm I'm inclined not to vote for it since it likely won't be changed after acceptance.
Not everyone thinks of the same things, so what one person notices may actually be important to another. Its mention in the public forum can be a valuable new criterion others may then choose to apply and, thus, sway votes in a positive way. Thus, I'm in favor of open discussion on the list. The real issue, though, is how to vote in light of the discussion. The vote isn't just up or down as with a review. As Jonathan's comments allude to, one might vote for log N, but only if the color is changed to C or the wording is changed to ABC. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee of the desired outcome, so if one votes for something with caveats, is that vote reversed or can it be revised it if those caveats are not met? Things get really complicated. Also, the voting methodology mentioned on the logo page said nothing about public discussion of desired alterations to make a given logo acceptable. If we choose to go that route, shouldn't we get approval from all of those that submitted logos? Let's remember that the reason we're voting is to get what we, collectively, think is the best logo for Boost. That includes subjective and objective criteria. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
The real issue, though, is how to vote in light of the discussion. The vote isn't just up or down as with a review. As Jonathan's comments allude to, one might vote for log N, but only if the color is changed to C or the wording is changed to ABC. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee of the desired outcome, so if one votes for something with caveats, is that vote reversed or can it be revised it if those caveats are not met?
I assume not. But discussing it here is a way to get some rought idea how likely the feature is to be changed after acceptance.
Things get really complicated.
Also, the voting methodology mentioned on the logo page said nothing about public discussion of desired alterations to make a given logo acceptable. If we choose to go that route, shouldn't we get approval from all of those that submitted logos?
I don't see why that would be necessary. 1. People who feel uncomfortable when there work is judged publicly wouldn't have entered it in a contest. 2. Knowledge that the logo would be discussed wouldn't have caused people to submit different designs.
Let's remember that the reason we're voting is to get what we, collectively, think is the best logo for Boost. That includes subjective and objective criteria.
I think we were assuming that attempting to change someone's view on an aesthetic matter would be nothing more than peer pressure. May this is not true. Jonathan
"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:d0hv9g$77n$1@sea.gmane.org...
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears. In fact, obviously, it will make my life easier to just do one tally.
IMO we shouldn't post any preliminary results. Would we sell TV right, for that continues updates would make it more attractive to watch. But for our purposes it's at best distracting if not influencing the outcome. Gennadiy
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:d0hv9g$77n$1@sea.gmane.org...
David Abrahams wrote:
One disadvantage of posting a preliminary tally is that it encourages people to try to influence public opinion. I just typed and erased something that hints at my preferences about three times. Make that four. Better press send now before I do something unethical.
I was afraid about this happening. I hinted on progressively posting the results in my preliminary heads-up message to the boost moderators list and no-one objected, so I thought I'd give transparency more weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you guys think that a continuous tally is not a good idea, I'm all ears. In fact, obviously, it will make my life easier to just do one tally.
IMO we shouldn't post any preliminary results. Would we sell TV right, for that continues updates would make it more attractive to watch. But for our purposes it's at best distracting if not influencing the outcome.
So perhaps we should also reconsider the way we vote for or against a library? At first, I was thinking about asking people to cast their votes on this list, boost style. I hesitated because such a move might overwhelm the list. That was the reason why I decided to setup a mail account for taking the votes. Yet, following boost style, I thought it was a good idea to post the ongoing results to the list. Anyway, point well taken. I'll wait for other opinions. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
IMO we shouldn't post any preliminary results. Would we sell TV right, for that continues updates would make it more attractive to watch. But for our purposes it's at best distracting if not influencing the outcome.
So perhaps we should also reconsider the way we vote for or against a library?
We vote for or against the submission based on some technical aspects. With logo contest on the other hand in many-many cases it's just I like this or I like that. I would be all for the post with I like logo number ## because ... (here some valid points from some points of view - but not because I like colors/size/picture better). Posting preliminary results bring more attention to the logos currently on top. In my experience, when it comes to selecting based not on some objective parameters but on some subjective preferences, people tend to prefer what they see first, what they are used to or what others preferred. Gennadiy
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
IMO we shouldn't post any preliminary results. Would we sell TV right,
for
that continues updates would make it more attractive to watch. But for
our
purposes it's at best distracting if not influencing the outcome.
So perhaps we should also reconsider the way we vote for or against a library?
We vote for or against the submission based on some technical aspects. With logo contest on the other hand in many-many cases it's just I like this or I like that. I would be all for the post with I like logo number ## because ... (here some valid points from some points of view - but not because I like colors/size/picture better). Posting preliminary results bring more attention to the logos currently on top. In my experience, when it comes to selecting based not on some objective parameters but on some subjective preferences, people tend to prefer what they see first, what they are used to or what others preferred.
Really? Hmmm. Well, I'd prefer to think that the people here at Boost are more intelligent than that. But I respect your opinion and the ongoing tally has been temporarily suspended awaiting consensus on how best to proceed. Let's hear what others got to say. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
IMO we shouldn't post any preliminary results. Would we sell TV right,
for
that continues updates would make it more attractive to watch. But for
our
purposes it's at best distracting if not influencing the outcome.
So perhaps we should also reconsider the way we vote for or against a library?
We vote for or against the submission based on some technical aspects. With logo contest on the other hand in many-many cases it's just I like this or I like that. I would be all for the post with I like logo number ## because ... (here some valid points from some points of view - but not because I like colors/size/picture better). Posting preliminary results bring more attention to the logos currently on top. In my experience, when it comes to selecting based not on some objective parameters but on some subjective preferences, people tend to prefer what they see first, what they are used to or what others preferred.
Really? Hmmm.
Well, I'd prefer to think that the people here at Boost are more intelligent than that. But I respect your opinion and the ongoing tally has been temporarily suspended awaiting consensus on how best to proceed. Let's hear what others got to say.
I believe the fact there are preliminary results does indeed change the way people are voting - the "hey let's adjust this" sort-of thing... This may be even worse for "intelligent refactoring addicts" ;-). But does it matter that much ? And would it be fair to stop, now (other entries do not get this sort of advertisement some did get already) ? Regards, Tobias
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
We vote for or against the submission based on some technical aspects. With logo contest on the other hand in many-many cases it's just I like this or I like that. I would be all for the post with I like logo number ## because ... (here some valid points from some points of view - but not because I like colors/size/picture better).
Some valid non-aesthetic reasons might be: it resembles the logo of compnay XXX, or it doesn't adequately represent Boost.
Posting preliminary results bring more attention to the logos currently on top. In my experience, when it comes to selecting based not on some objective parameters but on some subjective preferences, people tend to prefer what they see first, what they are used to or what others preferred.
It was suggested earlier that people should post critiques of the logos here. There is at least one which I objected to but which I didn't bother commenting on because I though it had no chance of being selected. Now that I see some people have voted for it, my criticism might be relevant. Jonathan
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
We vote for or against the submission based on some technical aspects. With logo contest on the other hand in many-many cases it's just I like this or I like that. I would be all for the post with I like logo number ## because ... (here some valid points from some points of view - but not because I like colors/size/picture better).
Some valid non-aesthetic reasons might be: it resembles the logo of compnay XXX, or it doesn't adequately represent Boost.
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example. These are all examples of the sort of thing I've been concerned with. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all.
Let me second this. I think this is important enough to be emphasized. I think logos and icons are *two* different things. I'd say that the ability of a logo to be iconfified is a desirable, but not essential, trait. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all.
Okay, you have a point -- sort of. The graphic parts of many of the best logos I can think of are iconish in nature. I'm thinking of Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple... Not that I can say much about _why_ I think that's important ;-) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all.
Okay, you have a point -- sort of. The graphic parts of many of the best logos I can think of are iconish in nature. I'm thinking of Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
Not that I can say much about _why_ I think that's important ;-)
I think it's important because it illustrates a kind of robustness in the logo's visual qualities. We demand our code to scale, why not our graphics? Logos that iconify well have an *elegance* to them that is not fragile and scale-sensitive. That elegance is what people respond to. It's also about branding. A nicely scalable logo is more likely to evoke the associated brand without any accompanying text. Having said all that, I guess I have to wonder if perhaps Boost really *needs* such a high-powered logo. It's not like a development tool where end-user applications might contain the logo as a default icon. It's not like an application that generates data files that might contain the logo. It's not like a commercial enterprise that might want to put the logo on various marketing and advertising products. So at the end of the day, perhaps we should content ourselves with something that looks good on the website, since that is probably where the logo will appear 99% of the time. My own desire for a scalable logo probably derives more from a demand for excellence than an actual identifiable need of the Boost "brand". I guess I think of a nice but non-scalable logo as a finely designed concrete type, and an elegant scalable logo as a powerful generic type. The scale-bound logo works fine in prescribed contexts, but the scale-free logo works in nearly any context. Since Boost aims to provide powerful libraries that free the user from context-specific solutions as much as possible, I tend to transfer that expectation to its art, which may not necessarily be fair. Dave
"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all. Okay, you have a point -- sort of. The graphic parts of many of the best logos I can think of are iconish in nature. I'm thinking of Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple... Not that I can say much about _why_ I think that's important ;-)
I think it's important because it illustrates a kind of robustness in the logo's visual qualities. We demand our code to scale, why not our graphics? Logos that iconify well have an *elegance* to them that is not fragile and scale-sensitive. That elegance is what people respond to. It's also about branding. A nicely scalable logo is more likely to evoke the associated brand without any accompanying text.
Okay, good points.
Having said all that, I guess I have to wonder if perhaps Boost really *needs* such a high-powered logo.
Would we survive without it? Sure. Would we go further, better with a high-powered logo? I think so.
It's not like a development tool where end-user applications might contain the logo as a default icon.
I can easily imagine some end-user applications displaying the icon in a splash screen.
It's not like an application that generates data files that might contain the logo. It's not like a commercial enterprise that might want to put the logo on various marketing and advertising products.
No, it's like a non-commercial enterprise that might want to put the logo on various marketing and advertising products ;-) and I can easily imagine several commercial enterprises that might want to do the same.
So at the end of the day, perhaps we should content ourselves with something that looks good on the website, since that is probably where the logo will appear 99% of the time.
My own desire for a scalable logo probably derives more from a demand for excellence than an actual identifiable need of the Boost "brand".
I think Boost "needs" excellence.
I guess I think of a nice but non-scalable logo as a finely designed concrete type, and an elegant scalable logo as a powerful generic type. The scale-bound logo works fine in prescribed contexts, but the scale-free logo works in nearly any context. Since Boost aims to provide powerful libraries that free the user from context-specific solutions as much as possible, I tend to transfer that expectation to its art, which may not necessarily be fair.
I don't know about unfair. It may not be realistic, but that's another question. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all.
Some browsers make more use of them. They appear on tabs and in the bookmarks menu. My browser also changes its window icon to match the current page so that it appears in taskbars, window lists and pagers. This is really useful when you have lots of windows open. But I agree that it wouldn't matter that much if the icon didn't match the logo. Something simple would work, such as a 'B'. Daniel
From: Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk>
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
David Abrahams writes:
Or it doesn't iconify well, just for example.
Never understood why it's important. What's the use case for it besides that smallish icon in the browser's address line that hardly anybody cares about? 95% of all the logos out there don't iconify well or at all.
Some browsers make more use of them. They appear on tabs and in the bookmarks menu. My browser also changes its window icon to match the current page so that it appears in taskbars, window lists and pagers. This is really useful when you have lots of windows open.
But I agree that it wouldn't matter that much if the icon didn't match the logo. Something simple would work, such as a 'B'.
Many of the logos have stylized backgrounds/text from which the "B" could be extracted so the icon has some connection to the logo. Thus, my focus on logos with an accompanying graphical element has lost its basis. BTW, all of the discussion we're having turns out to be really useful. The too strong association with Microsoft tools is a killer for #67. :-( Ignoring the icon aspect will free me to reexamine logos I previously dismissed. I'm sure others are reevaluating their own selection criteria. It seems the "Boost Way" is ideal for logo selection, too. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
participants (15)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
christopher diggins -
Daniel James -
David Abrahams -
David B. Held -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Joel -
Joel de Guzman
-
Jonathan Turkanis -
kalin -
Matthias Kaeppler -
Peter Dimov -
Rob Stewart -
Stefan Seefeld -
Tobias Schwinger