You should be able to close the ad above for a month at a time, but for some reason occasionally it pops back on. Trying to find the bug now...
There are many other smaller upgrades as well. Most importantly you can see the winners on the contests including the closed blind ones as well. And the Make an offer button is now visible to anonymous users.
You can also delete a logo right from your manage page. We also have the pinterest button on logos, etc.
As always let me know if you see bugs and/or you have suggestions.
Much appreciated!
32 Comments
I accidentally uploaded the same logo twice yesterday and both appeared on the site. I deleted the unwanted one but maybe change the system so as to not accept the same logo.
You're on auto-approval so you should moderate yourself as you correctly did.
I will not accept the same logo for non-auto-approval accounts, just like you suggested.
You aprove a person that uses clipart for auto publishing uploaded logos? What is the criteria of choosing the persons? This is starting to look like a circus show already. Same people in the SF, same people in auto publishing, same story again and again.
I warned you to stop accusing me. I suggest this comment is removed.
Not accusing, just telling the facts. Let the comment be removed if this is the politics of the SL - hiding that designers using clipart are tolerated here.
I know you mean good and want to improve things in the site, but this accusation is unfounded. There are no politics here. It's all open. We're not hiding anything.
You are accusing because the comment is not true. Do you know the whole story behind it? No you do not.
Ghostd I nearly did what you would call copying today. I had an idea for a logo called love quotes. Basically two quotation marks facing each other with a love heart in the middle. I did what you said I should of done last time and googled it, no results. So I then did the logo and just about to upload. So I googled again but this time putting lovequotes logo instead of love quotes logo. I was gutted because one logo one was showing. Very similar but not the same. Just want to point that out because if I was what you are accusing me off then I would of uploaded it anyway, I wouldn't I?????
Ivan could you please remove the above comment? I did contact you so as not to bring this out in the public forum, which, I think just damages the professionalism of the whole site. Also if I have one violation could you clarify privately please. I'm unaware of an official warning.
We do have a record of a violation, not sure what it was, we can search for it we should have a record of it somewhere. If you have any rejected logos you should have the message on it.
I'm not aware of it so it would be nice to know what it was for please. Also where does my avatar keep going?
Also can we edit Ghostd's comment. It's a bit unsporting isn't it.
He has one violation, but it's not a clear cut case. And that's not affecting the selection for auto-approval. The auto-approval is dependent whether a designer consistently demonstrated the ability to upload logos correctly without any technical issues.
I would give you the permission too, except you sometimes upload images that are too small, not according to standards.
It would be good to make criteria for this public and clear, you know.
This is currently running in beta to test if we experience any problems. Once it becomes a feature we will include this info on the sale page.
Please don't judge before you have full information about a subject. It's just not nice.
Ivan, i'm sory about what i will say, i do respect you and the fact that Sl gives the oprtunity to its members to sell their designs and i really do want SL to growing and getting better... But do you realise that you just said that User using clipart(not to mention that you said the client will get money back and the next day Rockadero asking for it's next payment when he was supposed to return the money he took for the clipart) is allowed to upload logos without aproval but one who "makes the images small" wouldn't be allowed. How is this fair? I don't this such system is fair.
You don't have to be sorry. I understand where you're coming from.
Both smaller images and clipart use demonstrate that the user doesn't understands the rules or unwilling to follow them for some reason.
In case of rokadero the violation was a long time ago and since then he demonstrated that he can follow the rules. In your case the mistake (not violation) with the image size was recent and it was also repeated (you re-uploaded the small image after I fixed it).
As soon as I can see that the rules are followed you will qualify for auto-upload even if in the past he didn't follow this particular rule.
As long as the account is active we don't discriminate against anyone. My goal is to put all regular designers like yourself on auto-upload to make it simpler and faster for everyone to use the site.
It was only ONE logo that i created smaller image and it was because it's getting too big since the logo is main design. But anyway. Again shows your weird criteria. I don't care if i will be choosen for this auto upload, i just pointed that you have no criteria for it and you show favoritism for this matter. He constantly put some topics about some logo being rejected, submit clipart but you still choose such person for this. If this isn't favoritism what is it?
With all respect towards you I think this is what called confirmation bias. You don't mind reality and reasonable arguments you will still attribute events in some way to prove your incorrect theory that I have favouritism.
Ghostd I suggest you read this.
http://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/what-we-do/defamation/?gclid=CKH9j52Cu7ACFUUhtAodtG1Aqw#.T9AJbOLC6Go
Ivan can you please reply to me privately as this has gone on for too long. This has never happened. None of my clients have wanted a refund and all are very happy with my in put after sales. Doing this actually helps other designers sell! It spreads the word about Stocklogos. This is insulting and a slur on my name here. I feel that Ghostd is doing this on purpose for every post I put on here and enough is enough. Why does this have to carry on and on. It's got to stop or I'll take advice elsewhere
I will check the records, if I find it will tell you, if not I will remove both the comment and the mark on your account.
@ghostd7: Let me quote your answer to Admin from Wed, 06/06/2012, 19:08, you said "[...] But do you realise that you just said that User using clipart(not to mention that you said the client will get money back and the next day Rockadero asking for it's next payment when he was supposed to return the money he took for the clipart) is allowed to [...]"
There are a couple of things wrong with this statement...
First of all, you are misquoting Ivan; he never said that the client would get their money back. His exact words were: "Thanks! I'm letting client know".
http://stocklogos.com/topic/help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-19#comment-92942
Second, it wasn't clip-art; it was an Illustrator symbol (even thought Nancy found this on a clip-art website). Since then, the rules have been modified to include a restriction on "symbols in vector graphics software". Rockadero made a mistake; I don't think it was on purpose... Particularly because, at the time, there was no mention of symbols in the rules.
As for the other instances where Rockadero's designs have been put into question. There were all deemed "parallel evolution" and/or "not a violation". You can read for yourself:
http://stocklogos.com/topic/help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-16#comment-79344
http://stocklogos.com/topic/help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-20#comment-94207
http://stocklogos.com/topic/help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-20#comment-94272
http://stocklogos.com/topic/help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-21#comment-98059
http://stocklogos.com/topic/help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-21#comment-98201
Rockadero is a well respected member of this community, even if sometimes he is a little bit opinionated. :o)
As far as I can tell, there was never an official violation. But, ghostd7, maybe you are thinking about that "Sony Ericsson" joke:
http://stocklogos.com/topic/please-help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-%E2%80%94-part-5#comment-41511
http://stocklogos.com/topic/people-help-us-find-logos-may-violate-site-rules-part-13#comment-73274
By the way, Ivan, maybe this joke erroneously triggered a violation record in the system.
Peace,
Spintherism.
Ah! Finally some kind words but very true and to the point! Spintherism is the new SL ambassador.
Nothing gets past you Spintherism and I'm very happy to have someone like you that can point out the facts. That sony Ericsson is nothing like the real one lol.
So Ivan, can I now have those comments removed please and Ghostd I'd like an apology and to stop the constant slurs you persist on putting on this site.
Yeah, thanks for clearing that one up, good concise information.
*All hail the Spintherism* ;)
Thanks a lot. That's why I wasn't able to find the record of an actual violation. I removed the mark from his account. I will however leave this thread open for a few days so I won't be accused of censoring ghost's feedback. I do value the work of all of you bringing up and then clarifying the issues.
Thank you. So to confirm and clarify, there is no mark against my profile and Ghostds comments are unfounded. Therefore I want an apology Ghostd. You being quiet after the evidence put forward on this thread also confirms the slurs against me were uncalled for. Now please stop this or I will take it further.
You won't get an apology I think and please just be satisfied with the public note that you have no violations. Thanks for the cooperation. Let's just forget about this.
I thank Spintherism for the time taken to prove this
You are welcome. I'm glad I could help. :o)
Yeah, he better be happy that using ready made symbols available in software are not considered unoriginal work. Am i right Ivan? No matter how you twist it it's still Unoriginal work and this contradict the point 1 in the rules - "The design must be original and created by you". This was there before the updates, right? Now, am i right that he has to have official warning and the client has to be paid back because he have design that anyone can use in their work because it's avalible in the software. I wonder what is your point trying to justify him when it's obvious that he doesn't understadn the basics of logo design.
It's somewhat of a grey area. It's not like he tried to sell other people's work. He just used something he shouldn't have. As you said it's incorrect to use these symbols and now it is clearly stated in our rules, while it wasn't so clear in the past.
Thank you for the info. I would like to hear the posiiton of the client of this matter. He is aware about this, right?
Respected member? Please! There is no respect for a person who calls a woman "bitch".
"Second, it wasn't clip-art; it was an Illustrator symbol (even thought Nancy found this on a clip-art website)"
Please explain me, because i am stupid, you know, what is the difference between stock symbol and clipart and how does this makes it differnt from being unoriginal work. And most important how does this could be considered acceptable for original logo design? What you're saying is ridicilous.
Dear Ghostd7,
I never said that "this makes it different from being unoriginal work" and I never said that "this could be considered acceptable for original logo design". Please don't put words in my mouth and then call them "ridiculous", that's not nice.
Since you asked, I'll explain... A good designer could make an honest mistake of confusing a readily available symbol in a vector graphics software for something that's "okay to use". We all use readily available circles and squares, right? So, in the context of the rules at the time, yes: there is a difference between a symbol and clip-art. I'm not saying it is acceptable and I'm not saying it is original design, I'm saying I can understand how a designer could be confused. For example, a designer could erroneously think "if a logo that is made entirely of squares could be considered original and entirely made by me, then surely a logo made of symbols could be okay too". Yes, it's a mistake, but an honest mistake; not a violation made on purpose. The rules have been updated to avoid this type of confusion in the future. And I bet that Rockadero will never open a symbol library again. :o)
I truly believe it was an honest mistake, particularly considering this designer's track record, considerable amount of sales and especially the fact that he has helped flagged numerous designers that violated the rules.
I know it is a technicality and I know it's all a matter of semantics, but at the time of the upload of this particular logo, Rockadero did not violate the written rules (maybe he unwillingly violated the unwritten rules).
You are right in saying that this logo could not be called 100% original. But, in this particular case, it's the client's decision to call it acceptable or not. You know, this was brought to the attention of the Admin ten months after the sale of the logo. In all those months the client had no problems; maybe he is happy and doesn't want his money back.
Peace,
Spintherism.