Yep, it's kinda tough to categorize us, isn't it? Part forum, part community, part resource, part blog... Certainly the points that have been made about wanting to nail down what we are and what we want the logo to represent are heard. The problem right now is that we neither have "good" answers, or the opportunity to focus on that at the moment. I suppose we're guilty of laying back to see what all you creative folks come up with, and I'd say it's pretty impressive. It will definitely shape our thoughts.
I think, personally, that the whole transparent or abstract reading thing is pretty cool. I like to think that we will progress with devices until they are form factors (or [I]non[I]-form factors like holographs!) that we wouldn't even recognize now.
For myself, I don't think I'm comfortable with that much "hand" in the logo. I like an abstract hand better. But the concept is nice, and some of the others are very intriguing also.
While it sounds like a cop out, I think we want to present several things (not that we have come up with a "real" list by the editors, but just my off-the-top-of-my-head):
* A simple and memorable logo that is easily recognizable and pleasant to see all the time.
* Something that reminds one of mobile reading, but is abstract enough that it can represent all kinds of present and future types of devices
* Something that has a wireless or electronic or handheld flavor to it, even if just slightly implied or included. Our roots include a lot of computer/handheld topics, and many of our readers and staff still have those interests. I'd like it to appeal to more than just hard core reading folks.
In general, logos need to be "catchy". Whether it's text based like Google or FedEx, or whether it's completely abstract like the Red Cross logo. Or mixed like BMW. The whole point is to associate the logo with the actual site, and to feel good about it. After it grows on you, it should have that nice feeling like when you come home from a trip and see your living room again!
The funny thing about logos is that they are like art -- there is both a first impression and a lasting impression after it's viewed many times in many situations. The "nicest looking" is not always best. And some of the least popular at first glance can turn out to be excellent over time. The other odd thing is that the technique and execution of the actual finished version is so important that sometimes it's also hard to see from a mock up how well it will turn out.
And probably the toughest thing of all is trying to get a handle on a unique way of communicating a concept in the right way with only a suggestion, which is generally what a logo is.
Again, this is not meant to speak for the others, because we haven't worked it out on our side yet, but wanted to provide a little input because the member input has been pretty spectacular and the whole topic is definitely something we are as interested in resolving as you are. A really good logo would be something we can enjoy for a long time, but the last thing we want to do is grab onto something just because it's "better" (almost anything is better than the current one, I suppose!)