5 ms·

I saw this on /r/design last night[1], haven't tried it yet, but based on the comments, it's not as intelligent as advertised. It ranks low the uniqueness of th

• Jack000 9y ago
  maybe that image really is a better logo than nike :] - on a uniqueness front there are a lot of swooshes, peppers and moustaches that look sort of similar to nike, whereas that image is guaranteed to not have been used for any icon or logo, ever. - both are fairly legible - the meme is certainly more colorful and eye-catching the neural net doesn't really judge the aesthetics of a logo, and it doesn't have any idea what the content of the image is. It just impassively gives you a score based on the similarity to thenounproject icons and a few other parameters.
  • rsoto 9y ago
    As I said, I'm not complaining, so don't take it wrong. But that's not a «logo rank», that's an image evaluation. What it should do first is figure out whether it looks like a logo, or not; if it's a simple shape, with few colors, it might be a logo (yes, there are logos with complicated shapes and a lot of colors—the algorithm should decrement its score based on this criteria). My point is that your tool is very cool, I wish I could do something like that—but that's not a «logo rank», it's a «how unique, legible and eye-catching the image you upload is» rank.
• codingdave 9y ago
  Well, is that wrong? Is the Nike logo really a unique logo purely from a design perspective, or has its extremely strong brand made it a successful logo despite its actual design not being very unique? Whereas a dumb meme is the opposite -- terrible brand, but very unique. The tool clearly can only look at actual visual design, not branding or any meaning within the image. And in that limited context, it seems successful. I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect it to go beyond a purely visual evaluation of the logo.
• ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  Not much unique about the Nike spinnaker, Newport cigarettes were using inverse of the "Nike" logo a few years prior