[paulpauper]

These logos aren't good. A logo should have some degree of symmetry, simple enough to draw, original, and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.

this is an umbrella plus tear drop: http://www.logodust.com/img/logo18.png

paperclip http://www.logodust.com/img/logo20.png

too complicated to be effective:

http://www.logodust.com/img/logo9.png

ripoff of star trek and anarchy circle

http://www.logodust.com/img/logo2.png

this was the only good one http://www.logodust.com/img/logo1.png

[ghgr]

> and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.

I appreciate some of your other points, but I particularly disagree with that one. Counterexamples right off the top of my head: Apple, Lacoste, Shell, Camel, Pringles, McDonalds, Schwarzkopf, Puma, Interflora....

[olalonde]

Just like domain names should be short, pronounceable, .com, memorisable, etc. Good luck with that buddy.

[diego_moita]

> These logos aren't good.

For a Fortune 500? Sure not.

For someone with problems much bigger than slick branding they are good enough.

[aplummer]

The quality varies a lot with these logos like anything, particularly when scaled down to tiny sizes, but some are really nice.

The paperclip one would be great for company that gets you paperclips, _fast_.

[Chris2048]

> A logo should ...

Why?

[serf]

Let me un-ellipses the quote so we can make some sense of things.

> A logo should (...) have some degree of symmetry, simple enough to draw, original, and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.

Symmetry is valued by us humans as a positive aesthetic.

Simplicity aids in recall.

Originality aids in brand recognition.

Those are some whys.

[0942v8653]

The last one, that you say is good, is very similar to the Kodi logo http://kodi.wiki/images/1/10/Thumbnail-dark.png

Also probably too close for comfort to the git logo: http://git-scm.com/images/logo.png

[icebraining]

I would never get "paperclip" from that second one.