Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote...
> The purpose of a logo is *not* to demonstrate the software's abilities.
> There are demos scenes for that.
> IMO, a logo must *express* what the software *is*, not what it
> produces.  In our case, I think the logo must meet 2 requirements :
>  - express the nature of Pov (a raytracing engine)
>  - specifically referring to Pov (but how ?), so the logo is'nt
>    suitable to ANY raytracer.

Actually, many logos don't even express what the software is.  Sure, it
would be great if a logo succeeded at that, but I don't think it is
necessary.

Also, many of these logos (such as #15) are just black & white outlines.
Such a logo could easily be extended into 3D with detailed textures and
complex lighting.  But in that case the logo doesn't depend on the fancy
lighting.

Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
interesting.  :-)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

>A complementary suggestion : let's not decide for a logo just
>after the vote, but start a discussion about the ones that were
>clearly deemed "best".  None of the logos seems mature enough,
>and they need some more improvement (individual or collective
>improvement).


I concur. I think that if there are several good ones, say for example, the
top 3 or 5, they be discussed and go "back to the drawingboard" for another
round. As of this post, the winner is #6, with 6 votes; close behind is #11,
with 5 votes; then #4 and #5, with 3 votes; #3, with 2 votes; and #12, with
1 vote.

Post a reply to this message

"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> A complementary suggestion : let's not decide
> for a logo just after the vote, but start a
> discussion about the ones that were clearly
> deemed "best".

As I explained in the reply to Warp, nothing is left to chance, and
therefore the result of the voting really should show which logo most people
are satisfied with. Unless there's a very close run I think such a
discussion is unnecessary. If the discussion is made we risk that the ones
who are best arguing in a discussion are the ones who decide which logo
wins.

> None of the logos seems mature enough, and they
> need some more improvement (individual or
> collective improvement).

What do you mean by individual and collective improvement?
If we change the logos *after* the voting, then it is not anymore the logos
that people voted for. Therefore I think it is too late to improve the logos
now. I may be forced to change my opinion on this though.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>   Looking at the votes, it seems that they get
> very scattered among many of the logos.
> There's doesn't seem to be any clear winner.

That's my impression too, though it seems like the winner will be logo 6 or
logo 11.

>   I propose that if the winner of the voting
> wins only by a few points compared to the
> second and third, a second voting is performed
> for the most voted ones.

A second voting is performed (and a third, and a fourth...), but people
doesn't have to vote again.
That's the whole point with this priority system.

Let me try to explain how the winner is chosen:

There are several "rounds".

In the first round we only look at people's first priorities when we count
the votes.
The logo(s) with the fewest votes are excluded from the next round.

In round two the first priorities are counted again, but for those people
who have their first priority set to one of the logos that have been
excluded, the next priority is the one that counts.
Again, the logos with the fewest votes are excluded from the next round.

Keep doing rounds until all logos but one is excluded. That's it.

What happens is that the votes goes from being distributed between many
different logos to being distributed between fewer and fewer logos until all
the votes are for the same logo. Of course some votes are "lost" in the
process because not all people specify all priorities.

It works the same way as if several votings had been made, except that
people need only to vote once, because they specify all their priorities at
once.

I hope this explanation is good enough.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

> I have listed my top three choices:
>
>  1 st priority: logo __Number 11
>  2 nd priority: logo __Number 04

> 3 rd priority: logo __Number 06

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:01:33 -0400, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:

>Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
>interesting.  :-)

Yes, I guess it is becouse the peace of mind and low bloodpressure you
can get from trying to get a scene right... ;)

Sven-Erik Andersen
----
sea### [at] mailcitycom
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Program/2549/

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote...
> The purpose of a logo is *not* to demonstrate the software's abilities.
> There are demos scenes for that.
> IMO, a logo must *express* what the software *is*, not what it
> produces.  In our case, I think the logo must meet 2 requirements :
>  - express the nature of Pov (a raytracing engine)
>  - specifically referring to Pov (but how ?), so the logo is'nt
>    suitable to ANY raytracer.

Actually, many logos don't even express what the software is.  Sure, it
would be great if a logo succeeded at that, but I don't think it is
necessary.

Also, many of these logos (such as #15) are just black & white outlines.
Such a logo could easily be extended into 3D with detailed textures and
complex lighting.  But in that case the logo doesn't depend on the fancy
lighting.

Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
interesting.  :-)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

"TonyB" wrote:
> >A complementary suggestion : let's not decide
> >for a logo just after the vote, but start a
> >discussion about the ones that were clearly
> >deemed "best".  None of the logos seems mature
> >enough, and they need some more improvement
> >(individual or collective improvement).
>
> I concur. I think that if there are several
> good ones, say for example, the top 3 or 5,
> they be discussed and go "back to the
> drawingboard" for another round.

For my opinion on this, please see my reply to Fabien.

> As of this post, the winner is #6, with 6 votes;
> close behind is #11, with 5 votes; then #4 and #5,
> with 3 votes; #3, with 2 votes; and #12, with
> 1 vote.

If you follow the rules you will get different results.
The rules I refer to are those I explained in my reply to Warp.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

1st 12
2st 11
3rd 03
4th 04
5th 13
6th 14
7th 05
9th 10 (The "POV" isn't readable enough)
9th 15
10th 09

Rune wrote:

> POV-Ray Logo Competition - Voting
>
> Anybody using POV-Ray may vote.
>
> I hope as many as possible will!
>
> o The Logos
>
> You can view the logos from here:
>
> http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povlogos/
>
> o The Rules
>
> You make a reply to this message in which
> you specify your priorities.
>
> At the 1st priority you write the number
> of your favorite logo. At the 2nd priority
> you write the number of your second
> favorite, and so on...
>
> You may specify all 15 priorities, or you
> may specify some of them only, but at
> least one.
>
> If you specify some of the priorities
> only, the fields that you specify must be
> the uppermost ones, and the fields that
> you leave blank must be the lowermost ones.
>
> You may specify one logo per priority only.
>
> Note that although some of the logos are
> quite similar, you should vote for both
> versions if you like both versions. Nothing
> is taken for granted.
>
> If something is unclear, please tell me.
>
> The voting period ends May 17
>
> o Vote Here
>
> Use the following in your reply:
>
>  1 st priority: logo __
>  2 nd priority: logo __
>  3 rd priority: logo __
>  4 th priority: logo __
>  5 th priority: logo __
>  6 th priority: logo __
>  7 th priority: logo __
>  8 th priority: logo __
>  9 th priority: logo __
> 10 th priority: logo __
> 11 th priority: logo __
> 12 th priority: logo __
> 13 th priority: logo __
> 14 th priority: logo __
> 15 th priority: logo __

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

1 st priority: logo 06
 2 nd priority: logo 09
 3 rd priority: logo 11
 4 th priority: logo 08
 5 th priority: logo 02
 6 th priority: logo 03
 7 th priority: logo 04
 8 th priority: logo 05


-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      |    -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |       zum Thema Portale in at.linux

Post a reply to this message