The NEW new MP Logo - give feedback!

A

A

Josh Janes wrote:Foot touching the edge of the logo is better:

No dabs.

C is the best of the bunch.

I like B and C

A would be out of place next to the other Projects' logos

A, who cares about the other projects!

A
C
B

Thanks for polling the forum!

A

A

A

A

A, C, B

But I noticed that the new sister site symbols all have a person on them. If we're sticking with that theme, then C

C is my favorite but any of the 3 are an improvement.

A or C
B blows...

A, then B.

Well, B is what I first suggested for tweaks. But I still think Kipp's is better. Much more dynamic, and suggesting movement is the hard part for climbing.

B, if what's here is it.

And thanks, MP!

A) because the others look like too many of the "hey, I'm a rock climber!" t-shirts floating out there, or I should be eating a Clif bar or something.

Of the 3, A, but it looks too much like a hiking or other generic outdoor logo.

The issue with the climber is that it does not look like she is climbing anything. Unless you intended the background logo to be both a mountain silhouette and some overhanging route outline (depending on which color is the rock), she is doing a lieback against a far away arete, and the proportions are out of whack. Both A and C better show off that the site is for climbers, but you need to put the climber on something that looks more like a route.

All the sister site logos work well, but this one does not.

If you put a person in it, make it more "real".

To me, her body position and the fact that she's hanging off the ridge of a mountain compared to which she's gigantic both look "off".

C

I would vote for A, though I think that all three of these are quite a lot better than the existing logo.