OneFund

by Logomotive • Uploaded: Mar. 24 '10 - Gallerized: Mar. '10

42607c9f9fa866918450acd024669c66.png

Description: Logo done for OneFund. Not chosen.

Float? (Floaters: 95 )

Add to Pad (In 77 Pads )

Status: Unused proposal
Viewed: 27809
Share:

Lets Discuss

oronoz ® Mar. 24 '10

Looks great Mike!!

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

Thanks Alan, client did not think so :) well thought it was too understated.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

Thanks Anthony, how it goes. Logo design ain't easy %3B)

Reply
0
logoboom Mar. 24 '10

Timeless solution and great design. Too bad.

Reply
0
Mikeymike Mar. 24 '10

too bad for them. this was nice solution.

Reply
0
milou Mar. 24 '10

very smart. and memorable. too bad.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

Thanks guys, I admit it's a bit of a let down. Guess it was not the right solution.

Reply
0
William © 2009 Mar. 24 '10

What's the chosen proposal? May we see it?

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

Well a combo of an old one I did along with clients idea? will be on onefund.com best I can say at this point.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

I designed the US One logo the star will be used with a version I did for client.

Reply
0
plantingseeds Mar. 24 '10

I like the subtly! It's a shame they didn't go for it.**I have a niggling question about the perspective.*If the top left and bottom left corners of the 'F' are trailing back towards a vanishing point (creating the '1') then the underneath of the arm and center-bar on the 'F' should be trailing towards the same vanishing point. No?

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

%5E the F would not be noticeable. Hope I answered your niggling question

Reply
0
plantingseeds Mar. 24 '10

You could have the vanishing point lower than center, that would fix the perspective and keep the F within the white-space legible.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

Ok thanks for your advice. I'm gonna stick with my perspective here considering it's a done deal.

Reply
0
plantingseeds Mar. 24 '10

yeah no worries, it's more hassles than it's worth, it looks cool as is. Fixing the perspective would alter the ideal shape of the 1 and F anyways.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

OK um you have made you point like a few times K. I kind of know how to design a little bit, so sometimes I just leave it. Maybe I'm not there yet? Still learning.

Reply
0
plantingseeds Mar. 24 '10

Take it easy dude. You're a much better logo designer than I am, but dodgy perspective is dodgy perspective, I studied technical drawing, was just trying to help.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

And you don't think I know perspective and what works in Logo design? Your theory would not work here and something I had already thought of. K?

Reply
0
plantingseeds Mar. 24 '10

Forget about it, I'm sorry I pushed a button.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

No just a lot of gurus these days...... if that is my button than yes.

Reply
0
JoePrince Mar. 24 '10

Not chosen? Only reason I can think is that they were looking for a wordmark...looks great Mike.

Reply
0
logoboom Mar. 24 '10

True that the bars of the F couldn't follow the 2 point perspective of the 1 but the bottom of the 1 could follow the 1 point perspective of the F.

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 24 '10

Joe thanks. Glen ya know what, that makes a lot of sense. I think I originally had it that way and cannot remember why I changed it.Think it had to do with giving it more perspective :)

Reply
0
OcularInk Mar. 24 '10

I imagine OneFund's target audience isn't going to give a flip about perspective. Sometimes it's okay to break the rules.

Reply
0
LiverpoolFanAU Mar. 24 '10

Shame on the client for not liking it. it stands out so much!

Reply
0
logoboom Mar. 24 '10

rules are MADE to be broken!

Reply
0
S.vanElderen Mar. 24 '10

A good one, the thing is. The persective of the F doesn't match the 1.**I rlly like it though

Reply
0
Logo Design Monster Mar. 25 '10

Really nice use of negative space. It is a shame that it will not be used as it is a fantastic logo.

Reply
0
carlos iglesias Mar. 25 '10

Simple and objective. I like.

Reply
0
rudy hurtado Mar. 25 '10

The subjectivity of concepts Mike, for some could be simple and understated, for some genious, for me... I'll go with the second choice. Their loss.

Reply
0
skoljkica Mar. 25 '10

like it a lot! clear and so strong. love your work Mike!

Reply
0
logomotive Mar. 25 '10

Thanks guys. Thanks for your perspectives.

Reply
0
mabu Mar. 27 '10

Lovely. Such a shame the client went in another direction.

Reply
0
Art Machine Mar. 28 '10

Sweet! A pity they didn't choose this. Well, their loss.

Reply
0
krinimal Apr. 24 '10

how do u nail it every single time! damn!

Reply
0
logomotive Apr. 24 '10

hold the hammer right? Sometimes I hit my thumb.

Reply
0
designabot Jun. 06 '10

missed this guy! How do you do it?...

Reply
0
logomotive Jun. 07 '10

Thanks designabot.*This was the one they went with www.onefund.com*Guess this one could still be used down the road, no loss here. For something like FirstFund or sumpin.

Reply
0
OcularInk Jun. 07 '10

Geez, I can only assume the chosen one was heavily influenced by the client. Doesn't even look like your work!

Reply
0
sbj Jun. 07 '10

ohhh dear.. sum times client really deserve a kick!

Reply
0
nido Jun. 07 '10

save it for our First Fight... dont worry... you wont be required to do a second one... you wont be here %3B)

Reply
0
logomotive Jun. 07 '10

it's ok. Good client and he knows his audience better than I do. The other one works fine. *Keep training nav, keep training.:)*

Reply
0
logomotive Dec. 01 '10

Something NEEDS to be done about this. I feel a lot of people are losing interest in this site. To the spammers U R pathetic. What a waist of time on YOUR Part. Get a life.Nothing is being accomplished here at all.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

%5EI'm barely at this site as of recent Mike. I simply cannot take the spamming anymore, it's completely out of control now. Rummaging through pages and pages of unruly, unworthy comments was bearable when this started, but I've just lost patience with it. It's sad because I really like this site, and it's a shame to have to move on to others. Hope the problem gets fixed because LogoPond just isn't the same anymore.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

%5EI understand your frustration David. As a visitor to the site it is very troublesome, can't imagine the annoyance as a site owner. I haven't checked the forum regarding this topic...is there one currently going? Can you allow users to delete (or hide) comments on their logos while this spamming issue is occurring? I'm just thinking out loud.

Reply
0
Hayes Image Dec. 01 '10

%22short of approving each and every comment%22**That would indeed suck :P I don't know, it's a head scratcher...doing that would fix the spammers, but would kill the flow of comments/debates %26 potentially cause identical comments.**Hmmm...I do like Joe's hide/delete idea but I can foresee that feature being abused i.e. People removing critique (however valid it may be) because they can't take it.**What if there's a timing system? Say...2mins between commenting, might help the rapid spamming sessions that've been happening.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

%5ERegarding the deleting/hiding comments...I don't think it would be a problem, because going to what you said about possibly deleting a %22critique%22, users can accomplish this anyway (in a sense) by red flagging the design so nobody can see any comments. I think myself, and many others, would agree that being able to delete comments of their design would be great and slow the flow of spammers. Although there is a possibility of abuse with this system too, it sure beats the hell out of pages and pages of spammed comments.

Reply
0
Hayes Image Dec. 01 '10

That's true...forgot about the red flag :)**What about a 'flag user' system?**If a user is spamming or being abusive, etc. the flag user button is pushed %26 they're temporarilly blocked till their comments are reviewed by Admin %26 then appropriate action is taken...

Reply
0
JF Dec. 01 '10

I believe David needs more associates to take some of the 'delete/ban these spammers' duties off his shoulders. Or, a delay in allowing people to post comments. Only approving the new members' abilities to comment after they've been a member for 2 months. That'd do it.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

%5EBut then the %22spammers%22 can start using that against us and temporarily block us. It needs to be something that only benefits the non-spammers...maybe a %22report as spam%22 button can be put in place next to every comment automatically when a user posts - when someone clicks the %22report as spam%22 button the comment is hidden. Anyone else with ideas? The more heads the better...

Reply
0
JF Dec. 01 '10

I believe you and I posted at the same time, Joe. You're commenting back at someone else with that last comment, correct?

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

Hey David, if you want/need someone to monitor the spammers and be in charge of rifling through the comments and deleting the spam, I am fully up for the duties.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

Yes, JF...that was aimed toward Josh's comment.

Reply
0
JF Dec. 01 '10

Thing is, with my idea of allowing more ppl to delete/ban spammers...it'd have to be a power only used with spammers, no other level of 'delete power' allowed. It could easily be abused.

Reply
0
JF Dec. 01 '10

Good to know, thanks JoePrince.

Reply
0
Hayes Image Dec. 01 '10

This is good, all the pro's %26 con's need to be put on the table...that's the only way the problem's gonna be solved :)

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 01 '10

%5EOh yeah of course, that's the idea. All I know is something NEEDS to change. It's only getting worse, and without changing or implementing something it's going to continue to grow.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 02 '10

I don't want this to get covered and not seen...what is everyone else take on this spamming issue?

Reply
0
megashred13 Dec. 02 '10

When a new account is registered, limit that account to viewing and floating only for a period of time and later allow uploading and commenting. Will a spammer wait around for a week or two for an account to be validated? I suppose it could backfire and frustrate legitimate users as well. Just a thought...

Reply
0
JF Dec. 02 '10

I support the %22delay%22 feature, because it can't be messed with or %22gotten around%22%3B people simply have to wait, and spammers HATE to wait. They're desperate folk. Only allowing commenting after 12 images are uploaded is too easy to be abused. And I say %22images%22 bcause...they will likely not be real logos. Or logos at all. The delay feature is closest to foolproofing of all ideas mentioned, as far as I can see. 2 months would be a sufficient amount of time. Anything less is still too soon imo.

Reply
0
JoePrince Dec. 02 '10

Sorry for the discussion on your design Mike.

Reply
0
logomotive Dec. 02 '10

:) I really don't care either way, just feel That's where David likes to address it.

Reply
0
AlexWende Dec. 02 '10

hmm a report button is definatly a must imho, especially for copycats here on logopond (like the user which copied my honolulu filmfestival), maybe a CAPTCHA-Test could help also to reduce the spam?

Reply
0

Please login/signup to make a comment, registration is easy