[Crovus]

[spoiler='You can actually click the image to view it in full size! Amazing, I know. Oh, and this is a spoiler tag btw.'][/spoiler]

I am a very bored individual, more than most actually. However, I do find it fun to look upon something and think; How could this be improved? Which is what I have done here. Not that the current look for this forum is awful by any means, it just isn't perfect either. So I decided to make a mock-up / concept of another version that I'd think would look and feel overall better. Note that I will continue to work on this, as it is a work in progress (WIP) and I do plan on making a few more logo alternatives for fun.

[katos]

Logo is far too hard to read. 
Logo's should be instant and recognisable in my opinion, so at current it is too hard to understand

Also, at current the design is too early in stages to rate and critique properly, but I look forward to seeing what you can create.

[Crovus]

Logo is far too hard to read. 
Logo's should be instant and recognisable in my opinion, so at current it is too hard to understand

Also, at current the design is too early in stages to rate and critique properly, but I look forward to seeing what you can create.

Logo's should be recognizable, not readable off the bat. If it is recognizable, then it will become readable however. It becomes recognizable the moment someone did a good job at the marketing and branding of the logo afterwards. That is the basic idea of logo and branding on a international scale. Though as I said, its a concept. (Albeit a very commonly used concept.) Also, if the theme is too early in development for critique, then what did you people spend the past months ago on? The overall feel and control of the current theme hasn't change that much, if at all.

[katos]

Logo is far too hard to read. 
Logo's should be instant and recognisable in my opinion, so at current it is too hard to understand

Also, at current the design is too early in stages to rate and critique properly, but I look forward to seeing what you can create.

Logo's should be recognizable, not readable off the bat. If it is recognizable, then it will become readable however. It becomes recognizable the moment someone did a good job at the marketing and branding of the logo afterwards. That is the basic idea of logo and branding on a international scale. Though as I said, its a concept. (Albeit a very commonly used concept.) Also, if the theme is too early in development for critique, then what did you people spend the past months ago on? The overall feel and control of the current theme hasn't change that much, if at all.

I believe you're getting confused. By saying the design was too early in stages I meant your design, not that of Forum Authority. Of which, the design has actually changed a bit over the past few months. However we have a custom theme, that suits the house style of Forum Authority - it now wont be undergoing massive structural changes until deemed necessary. A lot of our recent edits and additions have been on the mobile theming side of the site. You can find a log of our development here: https://forumauthority.com/Thread-Forum-Updates-August

As for the concept of logos, strongly disagree - especially on textual logos. Text in logo's should be readable at a glance - otherwise the logo is rendered useless. Let me give you some examples:


All of these can be read very quickly and easily, and use simple and bold font to make readability easier.

Examples of bad textual logos include:

[Crovus]

I believe you're getting confused.

You not specifying which design you were talking about isn't the same as me being confused. If someone failed to understand what you tried to say, then the error lies with you. (In other words, the person who tried to convey the message.) That is the basic of communication in terms of usage. So no, I wasn't and still aren't confused. You just didn't specify that you changed focus. Now that is out of the way, in regards to the current state of this forum's theme.

It has barely changed over the course of months, I know that because I have been constantly checking up on it. Heck, the theme that was prior to the current one was in a better state than this one. (And that was scraped and started over again.) So yes, it really is in desperate need for a do-over.

As for the concept of logos, strongly disagree - especially on textual logos. Text in logo's should be readable at a glance - otherwise the logo is rendered useless. Let me give you some examples:

You seem to be under the impression that I am completely unaware of anything in regards to this, that or you are just being downgrading because of ego. (Which one it is, I do not know, nor do I intend on guessing. Not that it matters in this context.) Logo's are meant to be recognizable above all. If they fail at that, then they've failed as a logo. For example, this logois an example of a text logo that many commented on being hard to read (like all the logos of the people that made this one), however they all also know exactly what it says. That is even though it originally wasn't shown with a undertitle with the full name, people made the connection through the branding and name of it.

It became recognizable regardless if it was hard to read or not. Thus it still remain the logo of the school that currently use it. They know what it stands for, they know what it is for and what it means. Yet they have still commented on it being hard to read. See the point here? It's hard to read, but is still regarded as a top of the art logo because it is easily recognizable thanks to the other work put into making it that.

On a side note, not

Not only is CocaCola's logo used as an example of "a bad logo" in a educational sense. (Which I know, as I do have education in media specifically.) It is also used as a example to demonstrate my point. CocaCola made the argument to change their logo a few years back, but decided to fall back to the more classic feel. Because it is recognizable, people know what it mean and have seen it enough with an understanding of the meaning to be able to read it. Even though it was difficult at first, again because of the overall branding.

All of these can be read very quickly and easily, and use simple and bold font to make readability easier. Note that "Kellogg's" also use the same approach as Coca Cola, and while I am not familiar with the design (as I live in a country where this brand isn't even a thing) then I am sure that where it is, it is easily recognizable thanks to the branding. That are two of your examples that you regard as "Good" that goes directly against the overall idea of what a "good" logo is. Your subjective meaning is meaningless in this context. (Though appreciated as a form of feedback.)

Examples of bad textual logos include:

Ironically. That logo uses the same basis as CocaCola. Hence, it's built in the same fashion. (Coca Cola was mistaken as "Coca Gola" and "Coaa Cola" by a good amount of people back in the day. Which led to them slightly altering the shapes to get rid of that. However, that took them roughly 50 years to do and the brand still survive as it was recognizable. So again, no. Readability isn't the biggest factor in a logo, neither is the meaning or message behind the logo. It is how recognizable it is, and that is helped by the product and branding of the logo. (Do tell me, do you even know what Microsoft's official logo means?)

[katos]

I'll be careful how I word this as you're clearly getting wound up - which I of course don't want (please note that what I am saying is intended as constructive criticism). 

Firstly:

Also, at current the design is too early in stages to rate and critique properly, but I look forward to seeing what you can create.

Should, in my eyes, have been clarification enough - though I apologise if this wasn't.

Moving on swiftly to the logo.
Whilst I get your point about recognition - you (and indeed, Forum Authority by extension) do not have the money, nor man power for the PR that these corporations have. Thus the logo (and again, this is arguable), should convey the message quickly and easily as to what it is all about. The logo (again, arguably) should be readable, so that users can begin to embed the seeds in their mind as to where the logo is from.

On this basis - that's why Google's colours have never changed. They've just modernised.

Though, I am going to leave this one here, as the last thing I want is for this to be taken in the wrong way which it was not intended for. Just be mindful that you're open to constructive criticism :)