I am extremely pleased with this contest and want to thank everyone who participated. There were some truly amazing designs that were submitted and, though not chosen, were extremely impressive to see. It is great that a place like this exists where so many designers can put forward such a wonderful variety of work. Wishing you all the best. -= Derami

I mentioned at the start (in the brief) for this content that there are free exposure possibilities for the winner. However, having seen so many great and varied designs show up since then I would like to do even more by providing exposure for other high-quality entries in a feature article on WebUrbanist. The goal being to highlight your work and give you a chance to get feedback from WU readers. I will be selecting some designs for this feature and will link back to your profiles - even if you do not win this contest, it is very possible that this would result in a WU reader creating their own contest now or in the future and asking for you to submit designs there. If anyone is *not* interested in being featured for some reason, feel free to message me directly via private and I will remove you from consideration. Thanks to everyone for participating and I hope this is helpful to your evolving design careers.

A thought on size/scale/proportion: Start with a rough idea of how much area the logo can occupy. There is some flexibility in both dimensions (i.e. it does not have to fill this whole box either or horizontally or vertically) but in general the existing layouts are unlikely to change dramatically to accommodate a new logo.

For example: http://bit.ly/9yE8GF Some logos I see (which are otherwise interesting/attractive) that are just far too long compared to their height, so I can (unfortunately) tell just at a glance they would need editing to come close to fitting. For example - logos with 'web' and 'urbanist' on the same horizontal line together with an added graphic tend to end up running way too long.

A thought on the dual-logo aspect: at least in one case, someone has come up with a quite compelling logo for one site first before working on the other. While seeing them in pairs does help in general, starting with WebUrbanist (the larger and older of the two sites) then waiting to try WebEcoist once you see how your initial design is reviewed is another option.

@Vira: thanks for pointing out that logo was a copy - that submission has been eliminated.

@Delavie: I like keeping an open discourse simply so people can see what is or isn't working at the larger level. That said, to anyone looking at these comments before creating a submission: please note that excessively-derivative works will not receive one of the highest two star ratings nor will they be considered finalists.

The iterations are very impressive to see. A few pack-leaders listed below seem to be the most on the right track, and are dealing well with issues like color, style and iconography. Some still need work in the fit/graphics department but they are front-runners at this point (while others could be in consideration depending on if/how they evolve).

@jawsofsteel ( #38 #89 #97 ): I have to admit, despite my tendency to avoid complex-looking designs I am really enjoying the buildings emerging out of the 'U' which I think would make a nice icon for the site in other capacities as well (letterhead, etc...) - I'm still open to a 'side' solution instead of an 'above' solution for the word 'web' like in ths second one of these mockups (which is the one of the two I'm also more drawn to overall). I have a more difficult time, however, imagining just what the 'e' will look like for Ecoist. That said, the Urbanist evolution is very impressive. I also like the shadow-casting you did on the first one ( #38 ), though can imagine it might not translate well into smaller scales on the sites. http://www.screencast.com/users/der…d17e6b0c72

@666 ( #9 & #57 ): still liking the simple iconography/colors but trying to figure out a way to make it work on the sites - here is a very rough draft idea of a direction it could go it to fit the spaces allotted though I suspect you could rework it much better than I: http://www.screencast.com/users/der…51f0bbe9fb

@Marius ( #54 & #70 ): the fit-to-sites is working very well but the graphics on Ecoist in particular just don't seem well-enough integrated. On WebUrbanist I would say: try, as on WebEcoist, reversing the color and black portions so the color focus is on 'Urbanist' and not 'Web' and maybe try to resolve the skyscraper pieces slightly more without losing the abstraction. Maybe a slightly more engaging font, too? It feels like there is Gajitz-like twist missing, a few subtle multi-functional elements to tie different things together.

Great to see such a variety of entries. I will do my best to respond to each one individually and/or in relevant groups. But first, overall notes: what seems to be working well is a combination of (a) a clear divide between 'web' and the latter word (i.e. Urbanist or Ecoist) in each logo, (b) elements/aspects that tie the two logos together in each set, (c) solutions that balance between being 'professional' and 'creative' - meaning: ones that are not too artsy but are also not too corporate, (d) uses of color that are consistent with each site (or at least differentiated between the two). What fewer people seem to be addressing are (e) the way the logo will fit/look on the site -there is some flexibility on the site side but not very much in terms of space/location and (d) the relationship of colors chosen to the site colors - again, these layouts/colors on the sites may change, but may also stay the same for some time.

#54 & #55 show a compelling use of color and integrated graphics and do a good job of illustrating how the logos would work in multiple situations. That said, the WebUrbanist solution seems slightly more dynamic with elements crossing between sides and the big graphic moment happening right at the intersection of the two words.

#9 & #57 are quite compelling but I am still having a difficult time seeing them fit in the (unfortunately fairly inflexible) space available on the sites - even with taglines being below them, they may be too long and narrow. The icon-in-the-middle is perhaps the best of that bunch, followed by the icon-above and then the icon-to-the-left. Any way to work with what is there so far but make it fit a slightly less-long space relative to the height, and/or engage more of the resulting 'void' space to either side of the graphic elements? Otherwise, though, the iconography is very nice as are the color choices. #45 #36 & #29 are interesting-but-problematic for similar reasons - #36 is the best fit graphically of these latter three; #45 is interesting but a bit too corporate.

#38 feels maybe a little too wild/informal but does a great job of turning the intersection of each word into the graphic focus, which reinforces the divide between them and the color brings the focus to the second word very well - while the style ties both logos together. I wonder if in #38 the word 'web' in each case could be tried out above the word (Urbanist or Ecoist, respectively) currently to the right of it? #56 does a good job of using negative space to accomplish a similar tie-in between them while in #17 the WebEcoist variant does something similar with positive space and cleaner graphics.

#43 & #52 have neat aspects but the graphics stand out too much as non-letters. #48 & #49 are a bit cartoonish overall but the choice to make the 'i' in each word in #48 is a fascinating way to tie both together. #50 is too busy overall but appreciate the attempt to create all three and like the way the building outlines emerge from the letters in the WU variant.

Eliminated designs - please keep in mind that while some of these still very engaging/creative, they were just not a match for what is being looked for in this case: #28 & #35 were interesting, but too violent. #25 & #27 were too colorful. The rest thus far eliminated were mostly too informal and/or difficult to read. That said, each of these is appreciated as well for helping shape the contest!

#13 #14 #15 - graphic elements seem unrelated to the full logos
#16 - nice font, colors - graphics integration is strong, particularly on the webecoist one, though weburbanist seems slightly more disconnected and right-weighted visually.

#10: too colorful/abstract - graphics far too dominant.
#11: interesting two-line solution on the WebEcoist logo, but unresolved.

#9: the graphic (non-text) elements seem to be taking over too much. That said, however, the font is nice (modern but creative) and the graphics are clean, compelling and well-colored. I also really like the way the two logos work in terms of being both similar enough to look related but different in the details.