@madrock -- I don't think it matters if it is "only" a website or a full-scale company. The minute you start with a name that is offering a product or service, you are in the business of branding. Our name is OpenDesigns.org, our product is webdesign templates and our service is community forums. In view of the fact that we have lots of sites online already sounding very close and almost identical to ours -- like opendesigns.com, opendesigns.net, opendesign.org, opendesign.com, opendesign.net -- I think it is advisable to find a way to stand out of the group. Maybe we should ask the question: 1) Do we want to be just another coincidental website (then we don't need to care if people can find us our like our place or remember our logo, but then why start a website to begin with?), or 2) do we want to be a well-known and respected source of webtemplates (then we are already in the business of branding, because we want to attract people to our site and keep them coming back).

But you are right, madrock, maybe I am overdoing it. So I will just cool down a bit for now. Were just my personal reflections on this.

Wish everybody in the design contest all the best and good luck ...

What is funny is that I had the same sentiments about the logo coming before the design before I even got to his post. True OpenDesigns.org is not traditionally a business in the sense that it is primarily concerned with commercial activities or increasing profit, but that doesn't make marketing and strategy irrelevant. Saying OpenDesigns.org is website, but not a brand, is really a distinction without a difference in my mind. I would say that is akin to saying that "Diet Coke" is a flavor and not a brand, but I think you would be hard pressed making that argument to their marketing department.

I really think the Logo should be designed first since it will be more timeless, and that the design of the site should be more dynamic and changes more frequently. I don't think it would even be bad if the design of the site changed on a yearly or bi-yearly basis and really refreshes the look of the site. But the logo has to be iconic and really speak for the site.

I guess in the long run I don't see what we are racing against? I know we all want to see the site up sooner rather than later, but if we work on executing it right, the community will grow, the designers will contribute, and the people will come.

May I suggest that your site design and logo be designed in parallel. I see no issue in designing the logo and site congruently; we may end up with a great site design and a logo that clash badly.

Edit: what I mean is if you are submitting a site design, submit a logo as well.

here is my rendition: (GIMP Only, started with the pixels gwolfgang sent, and I have not been doing this web 2.0 stuff long)
http://xmg.atspace.com/ODlogo.png

I like, it but i'd darken up the green. its too bright.

I like the middle one because you can barely see the reflection.

sure

where did Elemental go? (No offense to anyone) He is a good bit better at graphic design than most of us, yet he seems to have disappeared.

@gwolfgang the different fonts complement each other. I like the positioning of the text there, as well as the colours. The glass-look is on the bottom, which is a bit different from most web 2.0 logos.

what about a small globe icon nested inside the O? Too busy?

true that

If you want a demonstration of nice Web 2.0 logos, look at this:

http://yh.yayhooray.com/thread/90661/yh-collab:-redesign-famous-logos-in-web-2-0-format?page=1

Two more tries (graphics are unfortunately only Web1.0):



For those who want to reproduce or improve this idea:
Font for name: Humanist 521 BT (60pt for OD / 24pt for ".org")
Font for slogan: Corbel (15pt)

we will miss your great input, gwolfgang!

This post likes to remain active .... saying: Here I am, visit me!