4 ms·

I tried our company's logo (https://bench.co/press-kit/#brand https://bench.co/press-kit/#brand), which I think is pretty strong, and it gave it high marks. Bu

by neilk 9y ago

I tried our company's logo (https://bench.co/press-kit/#brand https://bench.co/press-kit/#brand), which I think is pretty strong, and it gave it high marks. But then I tried a very bad logo ("Kate's Florist" from http://www.paulmurraydesign.com/graphic-design/how-to-spot-a-bad-logo-design http://www.paulmurraydesign.com/graphic-design/how-to-spot-a...) and it was ranked almost as good.

grey-area 9y ago
So the rules given are Uniqueness, Legibility, Color/Contrast with a very simplistic description of each which I imagine reflects the rules used. That logo passes with flying colours according to their criteria, perhaps lower marks for legibility. Needless to say, there are more things to logo design than are dreamt of in this philosophy. There's more about how they use deep learning here: http://brandmark.io/intro/ http://brandmark.io/intro/ but for me it seems the constraints they've chosen are ill-conceived (things like matching logo strength to font weight) and unlikely to come up with something inspiring or even decent a lot of the time or rank things well which humans would have no difficulty recognising. This is a difficult problem, and I wouldn't expect rules based solutions to work very well, though some kind of permutation engine starting from known good designs could work better.
raganesh 9y ago
Good point. I guess it is a fair assumption that the neural network is trained using a corpus of logos that already look "well made" to the human eye. It is possible there may not have been any/many samples that would be considered bad. It would be interesting to see how this neural net evaluates a bad logo, using a tool such as LIME.
alexwebb2 9y ago
I think the Bench logo is confusing. I've never heard of the company before, but the logo looks like it might read "Bench Pi". It's the pi symbol in a shield (although it's so small it's very hard to tell at first glance), so... I'd guess the company has something to do with setting math-based benchmarks as some sort of metric-as-a-service? [looks at about page] Okay, no, it's nothing like that at all. The logo gave me the wrong first impression of the company.
- amelius 9y ago
  The bench looks like a "registered/trademark" symbol (it's in the same position). That's confusing.
  - apk-d 9y ago
    It just looks like something akin to superscript to me. I did not associate it with ©®™ at all.

by neilk 9y ago

grey-area 9y ago

So the rules given are Uniqueness, Legibility, Color/Contrast with a very simplistic description of each which I imagine reflects the rules used. That logo passes with flying colours according to their criteria, perhaps lower marks for legibility. Needless to say, there are more things to logo design than are dreamt of in this philosophy. There's more about how they use deep learning here: http://brandmark.io/intro/ http://brandmark.io/intro/ but for me it seems the constraints they've chosen are ill-conceived (things like matching logo strength to font weight) and unlikely to come up with something inspiring or even decent a lot of the time or rank things well which humans would have no difficulty recognising. This is a difficult problem, and I wouldn't expect rules based solutions to work very well, though some kind of permutation engine starting from known good designs could work better.

raganesh 9y ago

Good point. I guess it is a fair assumption that the neural network is trained using a corpus of logos that already look "well made" to the human eye. It is possible there may not have been any/many samples that would be considered bad. It would be interesting to see how this neural net evaluates a bad logo, using a tool such as LIME.

alexwebb2 9y ago

I think the Bench logo is confusing. I've never heard of the company before, but the logo looks like it might read "Bench Pi". It's the pi symbol in a shield (although it's so small it's very hard to tell at first glance), so... I'd guess the company has something to do with setting math-based benchmarks as some sort of metric-as-a-service? [looks at about page] Okay, no, it's nothing like that at all. The logo gave me the wrong first impression of the company.

amelius 9y ago
The bench looks like a "registered/trademark" symbol (it's in the same position). That's confusing.
- apk-d 9y ago
  It just looks like something akin to superscript to me. I did not associate it with ©®™ at all.