digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Web 2.0 Logo Creator

msig.info — Want a free Web 2.0 logo for your website? Use this free, simple builder to get yourself a flash logo. Beta tag optional...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • noname99, on 10/12/2007, -27/+15Pretty damn cool
  • affanjam, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13I wish you could chose wat colour you want. But still its cool
    • jasonhe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56Actually, you can:

      How can I get different colours?
      A lot of the functions used in this generator were built for MSIG so it supports the same colour system as Messenger Plus! Live. That means that you can colour text like this:

      [c=FF0000]text![/c]

      or for a gradient:

      [c=FF0000]text![/c=0000FF]
    • TheKingInYellow, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1you can easily change the colors if you use photoshop to make your graphics. hell, you can do anything you want if you use photoshop to make your graphics.
  • acsseo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6I'm not a big fan, all we really need is more Web 2.0 looking logo all over the web.
  • williamw, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Very Neat
  • greatromance, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Doesn't work for me in either IE or Firefox. Website works fine until it tries to generate the img. Digg effect?
    • diggn_it, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3same here, but I would think th digg effect would only stop you from getting to the orginal page, not just creating the logo
    • Zipp425, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Worked for me in Firefox... probably just the digg effect
  • FBMGriever, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Nope no Digg effect for me. Works like a charm.

    Very impressive too! Dugg.
  • reichec, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Works in IE, not firefox for me.
  • ate50eggs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Didn't work for me either :(
  • comdak, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2not working in Firefox, Opera or IE here. wtf?
  • TROGDOR42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I believe the correct name is Web 2.0 Logo Creatr. Stupid Flickr.
  • honds, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Works for me in Firefox. However, I don't get where "flash" came from... "flashy" maybe but the output is definitely a Portable Network Graphic (PNG) not the Macromedia Flash file most people associate with the word "flash"
  • ciccarone, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2nope, me either... looks a little gay.
    i mean, how many logo/headers can you see with a reflection and a shiny badge?
    viva la webo 2.0, but no viva dumb.

    • jonahan52, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Obviously you didn't see this from the site "This is meant to be a parody of Web 2.0 Logos. While they are pretty cool, they are all kinda the same. It was created as a joke, not a serious logo maker. But feel free to use it to make a logo. :P"
  • kbeeveer46, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7I think it's funny that now it's cool to have a "beta" tag in your logo
  • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3i think the ff incompatability has to do with Adblock plugin. it worked for me once i whilelisted the page.

    spiffy tool.
  • cronot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Add in this - http://dack.com/web/*****.html - and you've got a nice logo complete with slogan for your DotBomb 2.0 company...
  • whitecricket, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1just locks up at generating image. i was excited.
  • xXShadowstormXx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Mine:

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/Sigs/Shadowstorm.png

    Lol.
  • mtek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5works for me :D
    great free service

    dugg
  • energyblue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Can anyone tell me what font it uses? thanks
  • damndj, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Yah the beta tag option makes this ace.

    Web 2.0 - Good design is no longer a feature.
  • esteban, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Well we killed that quickly
  • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Where is no Web 2.0, this is a marketing gimmick.
  • craigts, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For everyone using Firefox....
    Try again. It no workie first time for me but worked the second.
    Also these are generated by code so once you see how to construct the image url you don't need the interface.
  • weezerrock86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Calm down people if you read the note at the side it says that the generator isn't something serious and was only meant as a parody on the web2.0 look. Also if you goto Flickr they are in Gamma now.
  • pampusik, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I think the generator blog (http://generatorblog.blogspot.com/) links to a few more of these...
  • rc_collins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1doesnt work... no digg.
  • ptaylor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1In the FAQ, the author says that this thing is hit or miss. Doesn't work for me either; a miss.
  • edalcin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Crap. doesn't work in IE or Firefox either
    • troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1works in firefox 2.0 with a new spellckr
  • MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It doesn't look that bad at all. I was expecting a crappy image.
  • ravi., on 10/12/2007, -6/+3use this instead of the generator
    Reflection+beta : use http://msig.info/web2v2/(reflect)PutcompanynameBETA.png
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Thanks, was finally able to generate one using that method!
  • mattvenables, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0used this before and its pretty cool - just pissed i cant get a logo to show up. same issue as everyone else.
    • mattvenables, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0cancel that - it randomly worked for me one time - must be digg effect
  • MrJinx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0I am not able to get it to work either with FF or IE.
  • neilbakker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Doesn't work for me...
  • enalios, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12maybe this is inappropriate... but is anyone else HIGHLY annoyed by the term "Web 2.0" ??
    • nathanr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2nope
    • oakj423, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I'm actually in the process of building a Web 3.0 app that doesn't use tubes at all
    • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am, it is overused, web is not in web 2.0. It is stupid, and all these "Web 2.0 apps" have betas in their logos, gaah stupid.
    • Chronic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4ive always wondered, how does a differant style of design constitute the internet version 2.0? It really makes no sense.
    • CourageousRobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I personally am annoyed by the prevalence of the term "Web 2.0" both online and in the media. The web is a constantly changing, constantly evolving entity. It has been doing so for over twenty years. There is no "Web, Version 2".

      If anything, we should be at "Web 12.0.6" by now.
    • xamado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You sound confused, Internet 2.0 != Web 2.0.

      Web 2.0 is a term to qualify certain milestones met by the serveral web standards applied today and a way of developing new web applications where interaction with the user is more present than before.

      Internet 2.0 is the whole hardware framework changes that are going to be introduced over the standard TCP/IP we know today to allow faster connections and better bandwith utilization whilst remaining compatible with current technologies.

      They are two different things, the Web is just a part of the Internet, not a whole.
    • betobeto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Who doesn't?
    • CourageousRobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Xamado

      Don't worry, there's no confusion there - I'm aware of the difference between Web 2.0 and Internet 2.

      The point I was trying make is this: Web 2.0 itself is nothing new. Yes, purportedly "Web 2.0" websites allow user interaction in interesting and sometimes innovative new ways – the term however is incredibly deceptive. As you said, Web 2.0 applies to websites that meet certain web standards… the technology involved, however, is nothing new. Sites that are labeled Web 2.0 websites are using pre-existing technology in innovative ways, yes, but the technology itself has been around for a while.

      These sites are merely growing more interactive as the web heads in that particular direction. The “2.0” makes it seem like we’re looking at a whole new web: a web “version 2”, which is not the case. What we’re seeing is the web in its most recent evolved state.

      What’s even worse is the fact that “Web 2.0” is now branded to almost any new website that has a certain design to it – even if it really isn’t offering anything incredibly special or innovative.

      I understand the reasoning behind the term, but the problem lies within the term itself.
    • xamado, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@CouragousRobot:

      You are right in some things about the term being a bit, broad. It's true, because it's actually just a term used by some people to describe a movement, a wave of development, it doesn't actually mean anything which is written and stated somewhere. But I have to disagree that the technologies have been around for a while. Css 2.0 hasn't been around for a while, workable XhttpXMLObjects haven't been available for long, etc. Let me make a shameless plug to an article I wrote that you might, or might not enjoy reading. PS: You can skip the first paragraph because it's written in Spanish since it's a usually spanish blog, excusing myself for writing in english, the rest of the article is good ol Asemb... i mean English.

      http://xavieramado.blogspot.com/2006/06/web-20.html

      Regards!
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Web 2.0 and all the Betas in the logos are kinda annoying. Good idea tho.
    Why the heck is it called Web 2.0? It is just stupid. Web isn't even in 1.5.
    When the web have BIG changes then you can call it Web 2.0, but now it isn't.
    • Veamon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Because if you have "beta" in your product, and it's good, then people think "Wow, it can only get BETTER!"

      Plus, Google does it, and everyone wants to be like Google...
    • dSlifer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wait, how have there not been big changes? The progression of DHTML and JavaScript coupled together to form AJAX isn't a big change? Now you can write to a webpage without having to re-render the page, in fact better yet, now you can write to a webpage without having to be admin or some forum member, but nope, that's not a big change at all.
    • xamado, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1And you can write pages without worrying about embedding/mixing layout with data... If you really think there werent big changes since the HTML we all used back in 96/97' then you obviously don't read/know much about web development.
  • solarpower, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It DOES work in Firefox, just hit F5 a couple times if it doesn't work at first.... It will just generate a link, so if for some reason it doesn't work, just go directly to one of these links:

    http://msig.info/web2v2/(reflect)WowBETA.png With reflection

    http://msig.info/web2v2/WowBETA.png Without reflection

    ...and change the Wow to whatever word you like.

    Cool site, I hope not to find these logos on every website in a weeks time. ;-)
  • Flump5000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1slow as hell. 10 minutes. still no logo. :'-(
  • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Nice touch with the Beta option.
  • keepingitnerdy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I liked it. I put mine up last night, worked just fine in flock which is based on FF. I used it on my test page for beta blogger

    http://realbeta.blogspot.com

  • Zerocool82, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It's ok but the style just looks to simple. I would use it.
  • csulok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0mirror? i see DIGG WUZ HERE on that page
  • Talphin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The tool sucks... The idea is priceless! lol
    Digg++
  • oakj423, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2samle of the digg effect:
    http://msig.info/web2v2/(reflect)DiggWasHereBETA.png
  • wyattxp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It works fine in Firefox 1.5.0.6 - the first time that i tried it it didnt work, so i refreshed and it has worked everytime since. Try doing that.
  • KillerX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Works great in Safari!
  • shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3219/themaskeddownvoterhm0.png

    the masked downvoter has struck again!
  • wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2There's no such thing as Web 2.0 logos. Cut this crap already.. stupid trendwhores.
    • alexp2ad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Did you read the bit at the side? The bit saying it was a joke? And a parody? And it was slagging off web 2.0? Did you read the comments where someone pointed this out?

      No, clearly, you did not.
  • BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I got a fancy Font with a reflection a novice could make. Boring. No control over even the color of the font. Lame
  • MushinVin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0FLAME ME.

    http://msig.info/web2v2/(reflect)*****'mLikingIt.png
  • hamsterxk8, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0thank i was the last to get a image generated, it just got DIGG EFFECTED w00000t!

    :/

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.