|
|
Rev Dan Catt Quite so. Whatever problems some of us have with the current logo the fact remains that many who are now here would have never heard of Flickr if Yahoo hadn't bought it. And the service would have far more limitations.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I got the bigger one by [ ] ing your profile url. what script are you using?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@curiouskiwi I thought nobody remembers the tubs... however Most of us know it is now part of Google.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Itsnotvalid If you want the small icons, use this script..
Flickr Buddy Icon Reply:
www.flickr.com/photos/doc18/2879637425/
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just putting in my two cents, right in line with Sonia: FUGLY. Don't like it.
You don't see "Skype - by eBay" splashed on the top of their, do you?
Come on. If they really wanted to brand the page, at least match the font, the color, SOMETHING!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mine reads 24 by 24. Maybe some of the scripts link to different addresses.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I increased the size in the instructions.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lisanne! edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
How could staff be happy with this logo change even if it is as ugly as sin? There are two quotes which help me to understand their situation..
"Don’t bite the hand that feeds you…"
and
"You are what you eat"
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
So tacky edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
I really have no problem with the logo, I DO on the other hand have a BIG problem with Yahoo encouraging people to download shared pictures from their messenger and upload them to their own Flickr account.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@revdancatt
I don't think so. Just look at the other sites like smugmug they still could handle it nicely (by increasing entry price for newcomers.)
I don't think Flickr wouldn't work without the help of yahoo. It doesn't lose money and yahoo's help in ads? I don't know if that is helping anything as there are lots of alternatives to yahoo ads.
Hardware, bandwidth and other things are just something that any company could get when there are positive incomes (which I think Flickr does have, doesn't it?) If Flickr needs such help it would only mean they are losing money to the point that any expanding wouldn't be possible.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i don't like the pooing dog!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
who really cares?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rev, just because Flickr does all that for us (and we pay them to do it, remember?) doesn't mean that we have to completely ignore any really bad changes that they make. That my friend is either a red herring or a slippery slope, it's been a while since I've refreshed my fallacies.
Brenda, what makes you say that? I don't think Flickr would be gone for a second if Yahoo hadn't bought and ruined it.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There's a grease monkey script to remove the yahoo logo for those that don't like it.
www.macmahon.me.uk/greasemonkey/flickr-logo-reverter.user.js
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr needed growth money. It also needed to increase the number of users significantly in order to grow. But even for that the monthly bills have to be paid, and they increase with a larger userbase.
Flickr does make money. But it does so because of Yahoo's financial investment in it.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks hypnogogia, but not all of us use Firefox.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Everyone has to eat.. and we all pooh. :)
part of life.
only this one stinks.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's pretty ugly - who the hell approved this color scheme?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
TThe dog icon? That does stink!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I really have no problem with the logo, I DO on the other hand have a BIG problem with Yahoo encouraging people to download shared pictures from their messenger and upload them to their own Flickr account.
Tara is working to get this resolved/removed/nuked ASAP.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not involved in the thread to bury Yahoo. Not liking the mixing of the Yahoo logo and the Flickr logo is not the same as trashing Yahoo wholesale. I just want everything in its rightful place.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not involved in this thread to bury Yahoo. Not liking the mixing of the Yahoo logo and the Flickr logo is not the same as trashing Yahoo wholesale. I just want everything in its rightful place.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lisanne! edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
I don't like the logo.
We all know who holds the keys to Flickr. We don't need to see it at the top.
If you're having to use Flickr to build Yahoo! brand awareness, you're in a heck of a lot more trouble than this little logo can fix.
Please change it back.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So tacky And your logo really rocks.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ЅF Lights Well, we can't all be fortunate can we ;-) It does worm on Safari too though.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You seem to have developed hiccups.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Itsnotvalid
I believe it's been said in other places around the web, that Flickr now covers its own costs (kinda).
But at the time Yahoo jumped in a paid for it, I'm pretty certain that if they hadn't Flickr would have hit its stability/scaling ceiling pretty hard. The growth it was having at the time was huge compared to the amount of resources it had.
Smugmug is a) a great place, b) grown at a different rate, which works well for them, but if everyone suddenly jumped from Flickr to Smugmug for example, then they'd need a sudden injection of cash for sure.
But Flickr is run by a small team, because Yahoo can handle quite a lot of the other stuff, looking after server farms, HR, lawyers, advertising, promotions and so on.
Aside from the fact that the logo is now inexplicable 4 pixels higher, and all the objections, this isn't really a terrible idea. It allows people who visit Flickr via some link for the first time to quickly see it's part of Yahoo, which wasn't at all obvious before. And as Heather mentioned before, it's a good indication that Yahoo are serious about Flickr and keeping it around.
As far as I can see, more cross promotion, if handled well, between Yahoo and Flickr isn't really a bad thing. They did buy and fund Flickr four years ago, so I don't really begrudge them tagging "from Yahoo" onto the Logo up there at the top (I kinda begrudge the 4 pixels though ;)
[edit: I'm not saying I'm a massive fan of Yahoo! Some of the stuff I've seen them do really makes we wonder sometimes, but this doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. That and I'm willing to cut them some slack because without Yahoo! there probably wouldn't still be a Flickr]
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
And probably Flock and K-Meleon too.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think it's something with my connection. It's been happening since yesterday on other sites as well as Flickr.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think it's something with my connection. It's been happening since yesterday on other sites as well as Flickr.
Verizon is tearing up the streets out here. My phone connection is iffy too.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tacky move
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
heather Thank you so much Heather, that has made me breath a BIG sigh of relief. *HUGS*
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rev Dan Catt
Hopefully no hiccups.
While it's certainly Yahoo's right to do this it just doesn't feel right. Putting the logo on the right side of the page would solve the problem. Yahoo would have increased presence and Flickr would keep its individual identity. And a lot of web pages have mastheads that are much larger. So even if they did wish to increase the size for visibility sake it wouldn't destroy the page.
I really want a solution that serves everyone's interest.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The newly added "Yahoo!" looks awful!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I need food, some meal i love it... Just like flickr needs yahoo.
But I don't think you need to have every grain of rice, every slice of bread stamp with a logo of who provides it.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"I really want a solution that serves everyone's interest."
You'll never get a solution that serves everyone's interests.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm very interested.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
it gets funnier every time you post it.
REALLY.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
nonsense! there are plenty of unicorn-oriented solutions that suit absolutely everyone.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I feel the logo is way to small. It should take up more than 59.5% of the page.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ike this.
farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/3950795343_fedc511bcb_t.jpg
[staff removal of inline image - link remains]
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
zyrcster (staff) edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Rev Dan Catt That doesn't mean that I have to agree their corporate decisions. And their taste is really bad. Take the example of Gmail, there is a "by Google" thing in the logo but it doesn't taste like SO Tacky's version of purple stuff.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rev Dan Catt , there will always be some people who will complain about everything. Even a compromise that accomplishes what both sides desire. But such a act will ease the discomfort of those who want to see something specific accomplished; in this case the joining of the two logos.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Nasty & Lame.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh my god i wanna cryyyyyyyyyy!!!!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Gmail was started by Google and as a free service one agrees to allow Google some latitude in self-promotion. One knew from the beginning that they were using a Google service.
But don't get me started on Google updaters.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brad: ew.. that really stinks!
the crap looks so unrefined when enlarged.
here, grab the larger file. even craps needs better resolution :)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
INBD.
Its no big deal.
Has it changed the functionality of the site? Aesthetics aside ( Not my aesthetic, but I suspect if it was anything but white text on a white background there would be voices of discord) ... so what?
When Yahoo bought Flickr there was furor announcing the death knell of Flickr. What has happened in fact is that Flickr has grown and become a more stable viable entity which we continue to enjoy at a very reasonable annual rate.
Any complaints I have about Flickr usage are for another forum and thread.
In general .. I like Flickr alot as it is, changes and all, and they have done very well technically and financially when one considers teh magnitude of people using the site everyday and what they achieve technically on a day to day basis.
We take this all for granted sometimes ;-)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ugh. As soon as I find a new photo sharing site, I'm there.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickr, you poop on my heart :(
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I see your point that flickr needs the Yahoo! branding. But does the 'from' need to be in the png logo with all its bleeding pixels? Why shuld the two logos be combined into a single png? Wouldnt it serve Y! purposes more if the two logos were two pngs with a click on Y! logo taking users to m.www.yahoo.com?
I guess the issue with Y! is that they are unwilling to adapt its logo/designs for its products. But I have to say I am thankful to them for not forcing the purple on flickr logo or flickr.com pages!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
patrickcollison
There a bunch of new(ish) photo sharing sites;
www.smugmug.com
www.23hq.com
picasaweb.google.com
www.ipernity.com
www.zooomr.com
www.facebook.com
Knock yourself out.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's just a joke, right? Temporary? Please??
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks hypnogogia, that script works like a charm along with the rest of my flickr greasemonkey scripts.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zickie: Had people not liked Flickr then no one would care to even complaint. Everyone also knows flickr belongs to yahoo when we signed in.
Its just how they blend up the logo into an visual mess, which destroyed what was a pleasantly minimal looking interface.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It doesn't stand out much from all the Pink/Blue/White, but now that the logo has Black/Purple too, I think it should be nice green background.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Horrible, don't care about Flickr being owned by Yahoo, but the Yahoo logo is just horrible, and the Flickr logo nice.
Also, when's delicious.com getting this horrible treatment?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@So tacky
Well I think "destroyed" is probably a bit of an overstatement. And, everyone knows Flickr belongs to yahoo when they sign in, but this isn't aimed at those people ...
... this is aimed at people who come to Flickr for the first time via some link. Before they'd have no idea that Flickr was part of Yahoo (which is bad for Yahoo, which in turn is bad for Flickr) ... unless they scrolled right down to the bottom of the page ... which most people don't do (scientifically proven ;)
And if it increases sign-up, that along with the Big-Blue-Button thing, I expect it will, then it's good for everyone else too.
When Yahoo! first bought Flickr, the price for a pro membership instantly halved and stayed pretty much the same since, and the storage for free members doubled. So again, I can't say I begrudge them after four years tagging Yahoo on up there.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
barf
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Personally, I don't get it the big deal. When was it unclear that Flickr is part of Yahoo? I pay for a Pro account, but what's on the logo doesn't really matter to me. When it's important for my images to stand out, or on their own, I post them on my photography site.
Let's look at another switch that occurred recently. Mint.com was acquired by Intuit/Quicken. The net was ablaze with fury about this move. As a Mint user, I, too, am ambivalent because of Quicken's terrible track record and Mint's ability to fill a needed void.
This switch, which is merely a logo, doesn't seem, to me, to be anywhere on par with the Mint switch. Other than people annoyed with the integration of Yahoo into the logo, what are the more substantive issues people have here? Seriously. I detect a hint of snobbery, but I want to be proven wrong by a response other than "It's ugly."
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@fizzadar
"Also, when's delicious.com getting this horrible treatment?" Well it hasn't yet, and Flickr has, so maybe, gasp, it means something ... looks around furtively. ;)
[edit: Yawn, night all)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
Rev Dan Catt edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Rev Dan Catt If you think internet user is attracted to the big blue button and yahoo logo on to Flickr which will somehow memorizes them into signing up you may have read wrong studies on Netizen behavior.
People on the internet signed up for something due to content and services. Plastering brand everywhere just don't work. They see good content, good design, good community, they signed up.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We all know that Yahoo bought Flickr. I guess Yahoo needs to show how big their you know what is by branding their name on everything they take over.
But I guess when you buy out a company it means you can do with it what you want even if it does not make any sense!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So tacky actually I do believe the big blue button and the yahoo logo will increase sign-up above the normal increase in rate by a not insignificant amount. Oh, about 100% certain, based on observation. But yeah, otherwise, what would I know about it.
joephotokc aside from the fact that it does actually make sense, and they managed to hold off for 4 year before, yeah, totally.
(and now I am beyond tired and cranky, and really going to bed)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe Yahoo could learn a lesson from a much larger more successful company about branding....
The McDonald's in Sedona, Arizona has teal arches. They are not yellow because they would have ruined the beauty of the surround landscape.
www.pictureninja.com/pages/united-states/arizona/image-mc...
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ick! Since I pay for a pro account, I wonder if they'd let me turn off their branding? ;) Not bloodly likely.
Thanks for that greasemonkey script to revert it. (http://www.macmahon.me.uk/greasemonkey/flickr-logo-reverter.user.js)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rev Dan Catt So, Yahoo had to put it's logo up top on the flickr page because the lack of the Yahoo logo was what was keeping people who click through from other sites from pressing the big blue, prominently placed, "join" button?
Your other points are well taken, but thinking that seeing yahoo next to the flickr logo will help people realize where they've landed and somehow make it more enticing to sign up is tenuous at best.
So what if people came here from another site and thought, oh, I've landed at flickr and never knew this was a Yahoo site. As soon as they click that big blue "join" button, they'd figure it out.
(For the record, I'm indifferent to the change. I didn't even notice it until I came across this thread.)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Perhaps it is quite an apt when you think about it. The 2 logos clash horribly with each other and seem to have little in common with each other . :(
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm with Brenda - I have no objection to Flickr being part of Yahoo, or to Yahoo sticking their name on Flickr. My only problem with this is that the new logo looks ugly, and on Flickr, ugly matters quite a lot.
I decent looking 'Flickr from Yahoo' logo would be fine.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yahoo! just vomited over the Flickr logo. By all means, change the branding to reflect your ownership, but don't make it this damn ugly.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think the worst part isn't that it says "Yahoo!" but rather that it's an ugly purple brand name stuck to the side of an iconic blue and pink logo on site where the only layout colours are blue, pink, and occasionally yellow.
Sticks out like a sore thumb.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To answer treeBjen challenge to come up with integrating Flickr and yahoo's logo, if it is a must, here would be my tacky answer.
Those icons and functionality above would work btw. It leaves Flickr's identity alone and yahoo lets users access its other services (or promote them).
My issue isn't with yahoo. i just think the way two strong logo is mixed is careless - it stinx.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And yes, the GOOGLE chrome browser surrounding everything is symbolic and full of metaphors :))
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree that looks better, and actually serves a function.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm with NoMoon, it sticks out as really ugly.
You also kinda know a parent company's getting desperate when they slap their name all over subsidiaries, hoping for at least *some* positive brand recognition.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The merged logo is badly crafted and I have very little confidence in the yahoo brand management team, thay havn't done anything sucessful for a long time.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
www.macmahon.me.uk/greasemonkey/flickr-logo-reverter.user.js
and it's GONE!!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Which fucking idiot did this?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Significantly dilutes the Flickr brand.
Looks so desperate -- major loss of credibility. I don't have a problem with Yahoo owning Flickr but seems they are not managing this role well. My main issue is that the Yahoo logo looks so tragic next to the Flickr one – seems like an ill-considered move. Flickr has always been about clean design -- and now its been so royally messed up. Sad.
PS. Am wondering what Caterina Fake & Flickr admins think about this.
Perhaps they are not allowed to comment publicly.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
Meanest Indian edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
el mattadore thanks for that!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Coverage of this issue by the Washington Post
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yah00 suck!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yep, I hate it. how long before they call it "Yahoo! Images" and the flickr name and any sense of personality is gone altogether?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I like it. I was sitting here in my chair from Walsh Brothers, reading this through my gasses from LensCrafters, thinking it looked nice on my computer from Apple.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Enough is enough.
I've cleared out all 2k+ of the photos I've uploaded since '05.
Yahoo owns Flickr, but doesn't respect it. That makes the flickrverse its bitch.
I, for one, am nobody's bitch; adieu.
goodbye.
-----------
Staff edit: inline image removed.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Here's my compromise. It put Yahoo's logo in a prominent position, repositions other stuff to make it aesthetically work, and lets Flickr's Logo look traditional again.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's my compromise. It put Yahoo's logo in a prominent position, repositions other stuff to make it aesthetically work, and lets Flickr's Logo look traditional again.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's my compromise. It put Yahoo's logo in a prominent position, repositions other stuff to make it aesthetically work, and lets Flickr's Logo look traditional again.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree with "So Tacky"'s post...if Yahoo wants to integrate their brand into Flickr, then do a toolbar at the top. It's still annoying, but less annoying than a really badly branded logo. I see the official Flickr employee replies are like those who have drank the kool-aid, and not really hearing what anyone here is saying. Yes, we are all grateful that Yahoo is supplying hardware, resources, etc, to keep Flickr up...we know it's part of Yahoo (I have to sign in with a Yahoo Id...duh), but why plop it in the logo? One thing that sets Flickr apart is that lots of PROs use Flickr...they have a 'design' and 'creative' mind...and when you just photoshop another logo into an existing logo (very very very very bad branding and graphic design idea, btw), you alienate them.
It's not so much that everyone is complaining about a logo, it's how it looks...it's not pleasing to the eye...and on a website that deals with...well...LOOKING AT THINGS...a bad logo is going to get a lot of heated and angry comments. Make sense yet?
Nobody will think less of Yahoo for removing the logo from Flickr logo...we will be grateful. Say "Thank you Flickr members for being such strong and supportive fans and we've heard you, and love you, so we are doing this". Not talking down to us or trying to make us drink MORE kook aid.
I mean, didn't you guys (Yahoo) read the latest reports? Facebook is absolutley destorying you when it comes to usage...yet WE PAY Flickr (Pro users) to use it. Why? Because we saw Flickr as professional and the rest as...jokes...or something 'everyone including grandma' uses. Now, we are the joke...less professional. You've destroyed the community.
Look at it this way...in a row of beautiful houses in a community, someone paints there house this horrible purple color. Yep, that's the Yahoo logo. Keep it at the bottom of the page...made sense there. Or do the toolbar suggestion...that makes sense and can look good if done properly.
Don't take offense Flickr and Yahoo employees, we are proud Flickr users and want you to hear us. If you don't, well, there is always someone else who will win (ahem, remember Google?).
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry about the glitches. I wish there was a way to delete the duplicated posts.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
HATE IT! WTF!? Maybe just for non-premium users as some kind of punishment... I don't care about Yahoo and don't want to be reminded about it- especially as a paying customer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's fine. You could make the Yahoo! part jive with the Flickr part more but other than that it's fine.
Are people really cussing others out and deleting their accounts over this? Sad, so sad.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey guys.... Inlining your ideas about improving the logo change is cool as we do allow screenshots for demonstration purposes in the Help Forum.
Inlining other images, photos, protest art is uncool. You're welcome to provide a link off here to it in your photostream, but images featured will be removed.
Onward!
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 folks at flickr would have tough luck getting that pink, blue Y! logo you made approved by folks at Y!
Look at it the reverse way: Would folks at flickr approve a complete purple flickr logo if Y! so desires? (Yuck and dammit, I think flickr folks will have to bow down if it ever comes to that!)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
New logo is fugly, period. Yahoo, it's ok to show that Flickr belongs to you, just do it in a more stylish way.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, Yahoo has used different colors at different times. In fact, the current logo on the home page is red. The one they are using for Flickr is violet. So they are flexible.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I like all of the other ideas so much more than the current one. You can't put the two logos together like that.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
R.I.P., greynotgrey...
Flickr just lost another great photographer... : (
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thank you flickr community for your monthly uprising, I was beginning to thing you all turned soft on me.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Agreed, but Y! has been in the process of rebranding its logo since quite some time now. Purple is in. All other colors and designs may eventually be phased out. And in that light, I see very slight possibility of a non-purple Y! logo appearing anywhere on a white background henceforth until the next logo redesign. I see them as inflexible on that end and rightly so (in my opnion), coz a brand should either have just a handful of logos (traditional companies) or a multitude of ever-changing logos (e.g. google)
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Itsnotvalid If you want the small icons, use this script..
So tacky And your logo really rocks.
heather Thank you so much Heather, that has made me breath a BIG sigh of relief. *HUGS*
nonsense! there are plenty of unicorn-oriented solutions that suit absolutely everyone.
el mattadore thanks for that!
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads