4 ms·

Looks like a wasted chance to illustrate the difference betweent this kind of ‘cheap’ design and the process of ‘real’ designers. You gave them a childish, non

Looks like a wasted chance to illustrate the difference betweent this kind of ‘cheap’ design and the process of ‘real’ designers. You gave them a childish, nonsensical brief and utterly wasted the opportunity presented to show clients clear, definitive examples why this process is so much weaker than working with a proper designer. All they've done is make themselves and supposedly ‘professional’ designers look like dicks, while utterly failing to illustrate to any non-design readers why they shouldn’t go with the $50 logo people. Top work.

baxter 17y ago
Completely agreed. From the title I was really looking forward to seeing how they were going to highlight the limitations of these services. Disappointed.
catone 17y ago
That was my thought exactly. The axiom reads: you get what you pay for. But in this case, I think more accurately it should be: you get what you ask for. Nothing in the way the "client" conducted himself (or themselves) indicated that they should have gotten anything better than what they received. This whole post seems like a poorly conceived (and failed) stab at humor. Meh.
sxates 17y ago
A clarification on the purpose of all this – this was done by the community for fun, little else. It’s a private community, so this was not originally meant to be made public. So there’s no motive to illustrate design value to clients or anything like that; $50Logos offered unlimited revisions, and we put that to the test. That’s it.
- steerpike 17y ago
  It’s a private community, so this was not originally meant to be made public. "I only submitted it to the hackernews aggregator totally by accident, I swear." Look, I'm sure you were just having your fun and all that but frankly I found your childishness in treating people who are just trying to do a job utterly repellent. The kind of fun you're talking about is the same kind of fun kids get frying ants with a magnifying glass - smallminded, petty and vindicative without anything redeeming to show for it. EDIT: p.s. You're an even bigger liar than I originally intimated because if this was not originally supposed to be made public you wouldn't bloody well have submitted it to: Digg: http://digg.com/users/sxates http://digg.com/users/sxates Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/user/sxates/ http://www.reddit.com/user/sxates/ and whatever else social sites you're on. Utter bullshit.
  - sxates 17y ago
    EDIT to your edit: Key word here is "originally". As in, originally when this started (months ago) there was no plan to make it public. I published it because I thought it was a funny read, you think it's mean and douchey, I get it. You don't have to get all Joe Wilson on me. The Root doesn't have a public facing site, so I published a digest version to my blog instead. I sought permission from the community to publish it, because I found it to be an entertaining thread, and thought some outside the forum might enjoy it as well. Maybe I was wrong. I think for many members, this was a channeling of the behavior of their worst clients towards a company that is insulting to their industry. Childish perhaps, but probably somewhat cathartic as well. When I get part 2 wrapped up, I'll address the issues you've raised, as many other members had similar concerns that it had gone too far, and there was a good bit of sympathy for the designers who put up with them. It was ultimately called off.
    - midnightmonster 17y ago
      > this was a channeling of the behavior of their worst clients Right. Next time someone calls me out for being a jerk, I'll just point out that someone in no way related to them once acted like a jerk to me. > towards a company that is insulting to their industry. Like that time Bobby Flay went off on some poor Taco Bell cashier for insulting his industry by offering cheap, fast, convenient food. Wait, I'm not sure that happened. Maybe I was thinking of how he's used teaching, media savvy, and his own personal enthusiasm to help the mass market understand the value of his (and others') high quality work.

baxter 17y ago

Completely agreed. From the title I was really looking forward to seeing how they were going to highlight the limitations of these services. Disappointed.

catone 17y ago

That was my thought exactly. The axiom reads: you get what you pay for. But in this case, I think more accurately it should be: you get what you ask for. Nothing in the way the "client" conducted himself (or themselves) indicated that they should have gotten anything better than what they received. This whole post seems like a poorly conceived (and failed) stab at humor. Meh.

sxates 17y ago

A clarification on the purpose of all this – this was done by the community for fun, little else. It’s a private community, so this was not originally meant to be made public. So there’s no motive to illustrate design value to clients or anything like that; $50Logos offered unlimited revisions, and we put that to the test. That’s it.

steerpike 17y ago
It’s a private community, so this was not originally meant to be made public. "I only submitted it to the hackernews aggregator totally by accident, I swear." Look, I'm sure you were just having your fun and all that but frankly I found your childishness in treating people who are just trying to do a job utterly repellent. The kind of fun you're talking about is the same kind of fun kids get frying ants with a magnifying glass - smallminded, petty and vindicative without anything redeeming to show for it. EDIT: p.s. You're an even bigger liar than I originally intimated because if this was not originally supposed to be made public you wouldn't bloody well have submitted it to: Digg: http://digg.com/users/sxates http://digg.com/users/sxates Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/user/sxates/ http://www.reddit.com/user/sxates/ and whatever else social sites you're on. Utter bullshit.
- sxates 17y ago
  EDIT to your edit: Key word here is "originally". As in, originally when this started (months ago) there was no plan to make it public. I published it because I thought it was a funny read, you think it's mean and douchey, I get it. You don't have to get all Joe Wilson on me. The Root doesn't have a public facing site, so I published a digest version to my blog instead. I sought permission from the community to publish it, because I found it to be an entertaining thread, and thought some outside the forum might enjoy it as well. Maybe I was wrong. I think for many members, this was a channeling of the behavior of their worst clients towards a company that is insulting to their industry. Childish perhaps, but probably somewhat cathartic as well. When I get part 2 wrapped up, I'll address the issues you've raised, as many other members had similar concerns that it had gone too far, and there was a good bit of sympathy for the designers who put up with them. It was ultimately called off.
  - midnightmonster 17y ago
    > this was a channeling of the behavior of their worst clients Right. Next time someone calls me out for being a jerk, I'll just point out that someone in no way related to them once acted like a jerk to me. > towards a company that is insulting to their industry. Like that time Bobby Flay went off on some poor Taco Bell cashier for insulting his industry by offering cheap, fast, convenient food. Wait, I'm not sure that happened. Maybe I was thinking of how he's used teaching, media savvy, and his own personal enthusiasm to help the mass market understand the value of his (and others') high quality work.