What is Digg?158 Comments
- Ikulus, on 02/13/2008, -14/+180I'll be the first to admit I don't know anything about graphic design, fonts, typefaces, etc... but as just a regular, average user, I really don't see anything special about Google's logo.
- k00k, on 02/13/2008, -9/+142anyone else always think it looks like a cheap toy company logo?
- gincarnated, on 02/13/2008, -3/+125Did they really need to have a different page for each logo.
- londonflare, on 02/13/2008, -9/+112did anyone else have to check on www.google.com that the final logo was actually correct?
- MewTwo, on 02/13/2008, -6/+90I've looked at the word Google a lot just now and so it seems funny to me.
- NotOptium, on 02/13/2008, -6/+59TMI. "I met Ruth Kedar 2 weeks ago" would suffice. ;
- MrTsLoveChild, on 02/13/2008, -2/+45good instincts. the logo sucks. it's very "My First Photoshop Tutorial"
- matriculated, on 02/13/2008, -2/+39That's because most graphic designers don't like the Google logo.
- antdude, on 02/13/2008, -0/+29The only thing I like about the theme is the creativity for themes on special days.
- OrangeTide, on 02/13/2008, -1/+30"We ended up with the primary colors, but instead of having the pattern go in order, we put a secondary color on the L, which brought back the idea that Google doesn't follow the rules."
Give me a break. How many drugs do I need to take to interpret their logo that way? - matriculated, on 02/13/2008, -1/+28I can't say I've ever liked the Google logo (drop shadow and bevel?) and looking at Ruth Kedar's site I can see why:
http://www.kedardesigns.com/ - skyshock1, on 02/13/2008, -1/+26Even though graphic designers seem to not like it, Google couldn't exactly change it all that much without losing their identity as it's been solidified in people's minds as THE visual representation of the company.
- NotOptium, on 02/13/2008, -4/+28Never thought Google's logo was a particularly good one. Recognizable and simple sure, but not anything all that cool to look at most days.
- Chucara, on 02/13/2008, -0/+23The more I see it, the more I think Google's logo was made by a 12 year old who was experimenting with photoshop, and could only figure out how to use layer effects, the text tool and the brush.
- vofuse, on 02/13/2008, -1/+23Yeah, if you search "google logo", it shows you.
- thanakar, on 02/13/2008, -4/+20Man, so many haters on Digg!
- FlashHazzard, on 02/13/2008, -0/+15AS a graphic designer i can say that the logo "design" itself is nothing extraordinary. But like many brands, recognizability follows success. The reason people care about Google's logo is because Google has has an impact in their life.
- MrTsLoveChild, on 02/13/2008, -0/+15god damn. she's a big fan of bevels and drop shadows, huh? that site takes me back to the early 90's. in a bad way.
- dafragsta, on 02/13/2008, -2/+17As a graphic designer sometimes prone to terrible ideas too, this is somewhat reassuring, but then again, the Google logo is pretty ***** boring in it's current state.
- Stupidumb, on 02/13/2008, -2/+14No, he means that there is nothing remarkable about the logo.
- kidcodea, on 02/13/2008, -8/+20im guessing he's feeding his own ego.
- pastaq, on 02/13/2008, -0/+11Yes, lets diffuse the current state of human communication even further with vacuous degradation for no point other satisfying your rat race lifestyle. Its not he posted two paragraphs of useless information. The art of conversation is truly dead.
- wordsofwisedumb, on 02/13/2008, -0/+10The typeface has an interesting story behind it. It is named after the Roman poet Catullus. Catullus was best known for writing erotic poetry during his time and was one of the most pornographic of the age. So Google's logo in a way contains a tribute to pornography and a good portion of the internet at that.
- theodenking, on 02/13/2008, -2/+11Yeah but the same thing happens with "Holocaust"
- Puttzy, on 02/13/2008, -0/+9Yes add a some shine, shimmer, and a gradient. That will make it stand out now
- iranu, on 02/13/2008, -1/+9One thing I don't understand is that this goes through the development of the current Google logo which was done in 1999 by Ruth Kedar including the colours used BUT looking at the logo before then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Google1998.png) the colours are already in place....I'm guessing that all she actually did with the logo was change the typeface to Catull
- Ranvier, on 02/13/2008, -0/+8Damn, don't give yourself an ulcer over it buddy.
- moore, on 02/13/2008, -0/+8The most hilarious thing is that they didn't show the how the logo looked BEFORE this "design". It was exactly the same as the final logo, in a different font. So out of all these new designs, they settled on basically no change at all bar the font. Then there's the ***** little comments made throughout the article like why the "L" was green. It was green in the goddamn ORIGINAL, it wasn't your idea.
I mean in fairness all those alternative designs were just as bad or worse than the final, so I don't blame them for NOT changing it much, but still... this article is ridiculously misleading. - BrendanSheehan, on 02/13/2008, -2/+9Sorry guys, but cello is right. They wanted simple and playful and they got it. The logo isn't "clever" because it didn't need to be.
- solid12345, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6Ugh that hammer is god awful, she could at least have used the gradient mesh to actually make it look somewhat three-dimensional instead of using a straight 90 degree gradient!
- mindspaceindia, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6And the simplicity of its logo is what makes that possible
- worthone, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5People above me have said that this is a bad logo, or even, the "worst. logo. ever." I agree, it's not that good. But is it supposed to be? Google is a search engine that gets you somewhere else – you're not supposed to stay at the homepage of Google but get results done, that is, to find your ***** material. To me, if you can recognize Google from very afar, it's a succesful-enough logo, no matter how much it looks like from the 90s.
- moore, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5Sorry, it's objectively *****. The reason you find it recognisable is only due to how many times you've seen it. Anything would become recognisable if it got as much exposure as Google's did. The fact that they have such a terrible logo is an accident of history that continues now due to massive momentum. It's certainly not intentional nor is it good--thankfully, it doesn't HAVE to be good, because it's Google.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Welcome to the internet.
- ZigVicious, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Have you not seen the London 2012 logo yet?
- smrekar, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5try saying it 200 times. it will sound funny too.
- bxblox, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4no that would be ebay
- Altesse, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Exactly. After reading the article and looking at the progression of the design, I concluded they decided to stay with the original logo and colors, changed things just a little (font, exclamation mark), and kept it. With due respect, I think she did almost nothing at all !
- championchap, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Lego is a colourful plastic building brick, also, the first Google server was cased in Lego. Google it!
- lintmonkey, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Well, she got paid, and that's the important part.
- Vorin, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4google those words and you come up with some REALLY bad ones.
http://tinyurl.com/yqd955 - for a computer place
http://tinyurl.com/2hgcko - supposedly an asian house in front of a setting sun
http://tinyurl.com/23o9qr - Pediatric Center - diulei, on 02/13/2008, -2/+6I've never been a fan of Google's graphics - but that's not what they excel at like Apple. They excel in functionality and efficiency, of which I am a huge fan of.
- loquax, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3It is usually an indicator of great design when you look at something and it seems new despite its ubiquity. The Google logo, however, is very dated and will probably have to be scrapped in a few years.
- elementfire, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Google's logo is spelled "G o o g l e", and their icon is a box with a 'G' in it. Great.
It just oozes creativity and artistic talent, doesn't it? This article was pointless. - parkamark, on 02/13/2008, -2/+5"The only thing it has going for it is the overall simplicity."
Well duh, this -is- probably -the- reason why they went for it. The KISS principle at work yet again. - pshoaxbuster, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3It is so recognizeable because Google is now such a big company. That does not mean it's logo is any good. I've always thought it was cheesy and childish looking. It's not the worst logo out there, many big companies have horrendous logos such as Verizon.
- championchap, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Have you been here long?
On the Internet we use "lol" instead of a full stop lol -
Show 51 - 100 of 157 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is ){kind=link}