The logo truly is a horrifically bad design, so much so that I just don't buy the claim that it is intentionally bad. That's just an attempt to save face because it is bad.
Glad to hear they are working on the speed problem. I solved it a while back by installing every ad blocker I could find.
edit: oh gosh, it's worse than I thought. The small squares of the 3 size grid on the right are a slightly different size than the 4 size grid of the logo. You can't convince me that is intentionally bad, that's just bad, sloppy, terrible work.
there's so much Tetris goin on there too. Also, cue logo design (mis)trend of late 2011 - the pixelated fade. ala..I think it was MS stuff/Windows back in like....turn of the century?
The amount of hollow marketing speak in this post suggests it's a rationalization after the fact. Which usually indicates the original criteria was mostly a matter of "ooh, that looks pretty".
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the need to rationalize intuitive decisions with BS phrases like "It’s a design that breaks more news than its competitors, that loves the code junkies working 22-hour days to build world-changing products." makes me want to barf.
Why does loading TechCrunch take me 9 seconds? What exactly are they doing to cause such a slow load? Why does a page load for them require 330 requests?
I'm going to say without looking that's it's for ads. Oh and I'm sure that blocky logo isn't compressed at all, (same effect could have been done with the logo at 50x50 scaled up ;p)
Glad to hear they are working on the speed problem. I solved it a while back by installing every ad blocker I could find.
edit: oh gosh, it's worse than I thought. The small squares of the 3 size grid on the right are a slightly different size than the 4 size grid of the logo. You can't convince me that is intentionally bad, that's just bad, sloppy, terrible work.