Update: Some IPs were found to have registered a very large number of votes (more info here), and because of complications of disqualifying some votes at this point with micropoll, the tallies will be adjusted on closing day on April 5th. In the meantime, extra security checks have been enabled and the multiple voting problem has been solved.
On February 10th, 2011, we launched the Open Hardware Definition v1.0, and launched a competition to select an OSHW Logo. Over 129 submissions have come in over 2 weeks, and a very active discussion on the forums.
The selection of the OSHW Definition logo occurred in 2 stages:
First, an invited selection committee reviewed and narrowed down the submissions (over 129) to 10 logos. The selection committee consisted of some of the most instrumental people in pushing forward/developing/writing/promoting the Open Hardware Definition.
Now we open those 10 logos to a PUBLIC VOTE and have the community select the top logo. Cast your vote here! Deadline is Tuesday April 5th
| Email Marketing
Details about the selection process
The pre-selection committee consists of 10 PEOPLE. These are some of the most instrumental people in pushing forward/developing/writing/promoting the Open Hardware Definition. They are:
- Alicia Gibb – Buglabs tinkerer and superstar co-organizer of Open Hardware Summit
- Dale Dougherty – founder of MAKE, and one of our biggest catalysts for the Open Hardware Summit around Makerfaire
- Benjamin (Mako) Hill – Board member of FSF and founder of Definition of Free Cultural Works (freedomdefined.org) which is the Definition’s home
- David Mellis – Lead Programmer of Arduino, and one of the most active writers of the Definition
- Juergen Neuman and Tuomo Tammenpaa – Founders of OHANDA, a similarly-minded advocate for open hardware going on strong
- Windel Oskay – Founder of Evil Mad Science and one of the most active writers of the Definition
- Bruce Perens – Cofounder of OSI and the shoulders on which the definition stands
- Phil Torrone – Senior editor, MAKE and our biggest media push for the Open Hardware Definition
- John Wibanks – VP Science at Creative Commons and the man who first convinced us to forget the law and get together as a community to create our own standards
- and myself – Ayah Bdeir – CC fellow and co organizer of the Open Hardware Summit and the Open Hardware Definition
The pre-selection committee scored the 129 logos submitted, and the logos with the top 10 scores are up for a public vote.
Pingback: OSHW Logo Public VOTE! « adafruit industries blog
95-Geared and 28-CopyleftChip are both excellent, but I’m putting my vote in for 16-GoldenOrb because while it, too, looks great it also 1. is more easily-replicated than 95-Geared, and 2. is more universal than 28-CopyleftChip (as I’d like to see “Open Hardware” grow beyond electronics).
16-GoldenOrb also gives some continuity with the OpenSource Logo.
The only problem I have with the “copyleft” chip is that, without the text beside it, it can very easily be viewed upside-down and look like a “copyright” chip.
Indeed! That seems rather problematic. 🙁
This is exactly my concern, and why I did not vote for it. The “copyleft” logo on a printed document can be assumed to be read from the proper angle, differentiating it from the copyright symbol. A circuitboard is frequently viewed from any number of angles, many of which would make #28 – Copyleft Chip appear to be a “copyright chip” instead – exactly the opposite intent of OSHW in the first place.
in that same token all the ones that have an acronym would be read upside down as MHSO or HO
Exact reasoning as to why I didn’t vote for it. I voted for 84 – open key, which, if rotated 90 deg., resembles a power symbol.
I don’t see why all open hardware has to be copyleft either? Why can’t it be permissive? Seems like an excellent way to make sure some people aren’t part of the community (I cannot foresee release something copyleft, but certainly MIT/BSD)
it is not so, because PCB usually has upper and down sides by having signature (a la “rev. 1.0 …. ” ) and silk-screen notes.
Besides that argument works till sign not in use (as a first impression perceptional trick), when you observe any sign neutrally you just recognise it and perceive it as is (as a natural fact) and turn it automatically ( just because you know how it’s looks like).
I like 95-Geared as it evokes both mechanics and electronics and can be machined or included on a circuit board.
I think there are some very strong entries but I immediately discarded anything with electronics imagery. Open Hardware should extend beyond electronics to mechanical and physical devices of any kind. Logos with traces and chips discourage that.
Agreed. Perhaps my choice for #16 was wrong for this reason too, as it suggests only mechanical hardware.
To me 38- Debreuil becomes the only choice as it has both a mechanical and electrical icon. It is good to be able to specify what parts of a project are open, or that meet the definition of OSHW. There will be cases where for copyright you can’t have open firmware but you can have open hardware. Plus, I think it will look great on my projects.
“The only choice,” or a good choice though? A lock speaks nothing of OSHW, there have to be better solutions out there. This symbol is going to be around for a long time.
I went with open ky 14, I also like the open hardware 38 but that couldn’t be used as a standalone logo without the text.
I think this vote page is not optimal… Some logos are very big, others are so shrinked. Compare n. 16 and 38. It’s really difficult to choose one logo from this page. Maybe we could resize some of the logos.
aestros, every logo got 100 px in width, unfortunately some designers put several designs in one entry (which is not optimal) so their individual designs will get less coverage. We’re trying to be as fair as possible. Hope this helps!
I prefer 16 – Golden Orb. It compliments the OSI logo with a hardware version. (If we do go with this logo, we might want to check with the OSI and make sure that they aren’t concerned that it is too similar)
Also would be nice to have an electronic component added to it. And give it the polish of #28 or #84. You think?
the logos are nice, but I am troubled by the ones that use the English language to make it clear what the logo actually represents. Unfortunately, the ones that don’t use words have other limitations as a universal symbol, in my mind. But Golden Orb 16 evokes a keyhole *and* an open piece of hardware, even if we usually mean electronic hardware in this context. It should also be easy to read and recognize in fine silkscreen, so that’s my vote.
I voted for 95 because it’s easily recognizable as something “hardware” but not necessarily electronics, and you can see the “open” part which I think was one of the original requirements. Also it has the full words “Open Hardware” included for those who don’t recognize the logo, and it only requires one color or layer which makes it reproduceable on a silkscreen or in copper on a circuit board.
I like all the other logos, but:
– 3 is not easily recognizable as a chip (arguably) and is electronics-specific
– 14, 28 and 84 can easily be mistaken for Copyright logos, as discussed above
– 16 uses multiple colors
– 4 is also electronics-specific
– 38 and 53 are too generic IMNSHO
– 52 looks like bait for a Disney lawsuit
Why didn’t you pick the open lock logo, the one in your favicon? Are you people crazy!? That one was by far the most elegant and professional-looking logo of the lot!
the open lock was my personal favorite too :(. But many people pointed out (rightly i guess), that we shouldnt use a lock to signify openness.
Wow, I assume you guys are referring to 16. I thought it looked like a gear that was cracked open, with the openness resembling a silhouette of a human.
I didn’t see the lock.
We shouldn’t use a “lock” to signify openness? How about the obvious— That we were using an “unlock” to signify openness.
How in the world could you say that an unlocked lock has “locking” connotations? Quite the opposite.
I was excited about this public vote, but the logo pre-screening turned out to be a sham, and now we’re left with a couple decent choices and several poor ones.
Really? Using symbols that have English alphabet glyphs? No, I don’t think so.
This is embarrassing.
Pingback: OSHW Logo Selection — Public Vote! - MakerBot Industries
I rather liked #95 Geared, but ended up voting for #16 Golden Orb.
Why? Well, apart from the above comments regarding both Geared and Golden Orb, there’s the font. I would love the logo to be *entirely* free, and I know for a fact that the Geared font is non-free. On the other hand, I don’t really know about the Golden Orb font (I don’t recognize it) but note that the designer is open to suggestions on just this point. I would suggest a simple, heavy font such as the bold version of Deja Vu.
But it doesn’t mean we couldn’t approach the typographer to open the font to us or develop a variation specifically for OSHW. I personally don’t think openness should be a substitute for quality (which is most often the case with free-fonts).
Regarding 95 “Geared”, this is quite similar to the style in which biological cells are often drawn, e.g., here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macrophage.png
In the first one, we see a cell, complete with nucleus, where the membrane has been ruptured. Below, we see more damaged cells, each with a hydroxyl radical (-OH) inside, which would be quite fitting, see also the last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl#Hydroxyl_radical
So, if I vote for any of the multi-version logos (i.e. 95-Geared), how do you know which variation I’m voting for? On a vote like this, clarity is key, and the versions with the ‘OH’ inside the gear don’t seem to work very well…
I’m voting golden orb, but please get a pro graphics designer to “develop the concept” a little. The concept is good but the font is poor and this logo could look so much nicer with a pro spending a little time on it. Whoever did it, please don’t take offense!
Really sorry, just seen the vote percentages post vote submission and I am freaked out by what I’ve seen. *Please* get more votes. 🙂 I’ve RTed.
I’ve voted for 95, but please consider changing the font to something more original.
I can’t bring myself to vote for any of these.
Some principles for selection:
– looks good in any orientation
– no text (you can *add* letterhead later if you want, but logo should not contain it)
– convey some kind of meaning (but not too specific e.g. more than just microchips…)
– look good
In my opinion none of the ten satisfy all of these, most fail on multiple counts.
Zooming out to the larger collection, I think that
#4 Open IC (just make it single color) and
#42 open hardware bolt
could both work. But actually I’d reopen submissions 🙂
Agree with you here. Let’s hope this can happen. It’s been a valuable exercise none-the-less, as we know what the community favors, and we have great ideas to develop.
Agreed. If I had to guess their selection process, it looks like they ranked from best to ugliest and picked the ones at the bottom of the list.
I rather like the idea of having the text.
If someone is unfamiliar with the logo, it is that much harder to research what it stands for. Unless the movement gains a lot more popularity than I believe that it can at this point, I think that users would be apt to look at it, wonder what it is, and then move on with their lives.
However, if the logo is labeled, the user could easily research exactly what it stands for
I agree with Eric on all the points he makes. this voting should also have included an option to vote for none of the above in order to consider the opinion of those who would rather see none of these flawed options make it as the final logo.
Please OSHW, reconsider.
Hey guys, if you have a look at one of my recent tweets (@bartonsmith), I put out a call to graphic designers to have a look at this project holistically.
I really don’t want to be rude to the submissions above, but this symbol is going to exist for a while and if we don’t do it properly now, it will be too hard/engrained to fix/update later.
I’m also not trying to go under the Open Hardware Summit. I’ve contacted Ayah and made her aware of it all, but I figured if I didn’t do it, it may not happen, and I feel really passionate about doing this properly.
So jump on my Twitter pages and RT that shit 🙂
Seems that comments with links aren’t really welcome. Here’s mine without links:
Regarding 95 “Geared”, this is quite similar to the style in which biological cells are often drawn.
(See “Macrophage” on Wikipedia.)
In the first one, we see a cell, complete with nucleus, where the membrane has been ruptured. Below, we see more damaged cells, each with a hydroxyl radical (-OH) inside, which would be quite fitting. (See “Hydroxyl” on Wikipedia.)
I voted for #16, but with the hope that the designer of #28 and #84 could spin his/her magic onto it. It would have been interesting if there was the option to choose “none of these” to see how many people actually want these, or if they are just choosing the best of what is offered.
Don’t get me wrong, great efforts from everyone, there are some nice ideas in there, but for something that is going to be so impacting and longstanding, isn’t it important that we ensure we do it properly and that we have something really polished and professional?
Also it would be nice to decided on “Open Source Hardware” vs “Open Hardware.” Personally “Open Source Hardware” is the only one that makes sense to me, as “Open Hardware” suggests something that is physically open. Plus it’s “Open Source Software” so it would make sense to retain consistency.
I’d love for us to propose a scalable system for all “Open” movements (OpenIdeas, OpenApps, Open Source Software, Open Source Hardware, Open Source Design. Or is that OpenSource Hardware etc…)
What’s this “pre-selected” BS? Not very open if you ask me.
22- OH Component
42- Open Hardware Bolt Logo
I think the best decision now will be to choose one variant, drawing attention mostly on it’s ideological side and decide that’s wrong with it’s appearance.
I think it’s a good thought to take the idea of #16 and make it visually more attractive.
It won’t take long, especially after such passionate discussion. I can help with that.
Has this page been hacked? What’s with the “engage and get paid” bit.ly link and the mangled table?
For example, like this: http://www.merlinni.com/files/oshw_quick_logo.jpg
But some font work needed, to make it look closer to that one: http://dribbble.com/shots/131972-Chief-s-Packaging
I voted for Geared but looking at the voting I’d be happy with Golden Orb or copyleft chip.
Oh and the table looks a complete mess, tested in both Firefox and Chrome, what gives?!
I would have voted for the ‘self-cannibalizing snake’ (the green wrench biting its tail with a happy face in the middle) if it was selected. I voted for Osmosis instead because I think the pores in the outline symbolize openness, and it will be easy for people coming upon the logo on a piece of hardware to search for the letters and find out what it means. The other two that look like Osmosis, OSHW Connections and OSHW Bot, seem too specific in the type of hardware they depict.
I also have a problem with the current leader, copyleft chip. It has been mentioned before that if that logo is turned 180°, easy to do on a piece of hardware, it becomes a copyright chip. I’m surprised it passed selection.
Please can we avoid tying the logo to electronics
Whilst I realise that it’s main usage will be as a ‘me too’ stamp on cheap electronics kits, it’d be a shame if ambitious hardware projects ignored the Open Source mantle because the logo implied an electronics connection.
Whilst I’m here, can I also have a mini-grumble about having typography in a logo: It’s not needed. The idea is important; the words/initials are not.
I voted for 95, with the hope that the lettering is removed!
Why wont this render properly in Firefox???
Trying to figure this out myself! Seems a problem in micropoll. We’r investigating..
I voted for 95. As with some of the other commenters, I thought it was “Open Source Hardware”, not “Open Hardware”. I rather like the idea of the angled gear wheel (bottom one) without the wording.
Honestly, there is no clear winner and none of them look very good. Sort of disappointing.
Let’s do something about it then 🙂
If you click my name link it’s a doc I’m trying to circulate to graphic designers to see if we can get some alternate options. You never know what they may come up with!
There are definitely some strong contenders. My favorite is the #28 copyleft chip. It is clean, professional looking, and might make the uneducated ask about copyleft. I understand that there is a valid argument against having a logo tied to electronics hardware, however the movement does in many ways come from the hacking world and the logo will largely apply to digital objects (board plans, STL files for 3D printed designs, etc) that wouldn’t look strange with this logo applied to them. As far as the issue with seeing the logo backwards as “copyright”, this is also a valid observation, but it is likely that in the vast majority of cases this will not be an issue. You could argue the same principle for any embossed “maker’s mark”.
As for other contenders, the top angled gear on #95 is attractive, although the bottom two options are more amateurish looking (something that I think should be seriously avoided). I like #84 the open key, although I think that it would look horrible if even slightly misaligned and does look a tiny bit confusing at first glance (I just want the key to face right, even though I get the symbolism).
I voted 84 because it was the only one that appealed both the electronic and mechanic hardware.
However, I might change my vote to 16 if:
1) The text was dropped.
2) The color blue was changed. (For some reason it just reminds me of old Linux distro..)
Btw: congrats to 16 to skillfully hide that ‘key hole’ there
Pingback: Vote for the Open Source Hardware logo « Black Hat Security
Pingback: Vota por el logo para Open Source Hardware | DistroGeek
You indeed seem to have a problem. What if none are globally representative enough? You should have had a “none” option in the poll, possibly with a comment box on why.
Also, do remember this: if people will feel that the winning logo isn’t appropriately, clearly and elegantly representing what it should, they simply won’t use it – you’ll just end up with an obscure, official but rarely-used logo…
i think there are many points to be considered:
1. The Logo must be that clear, that it can be very – I mean VERY- tiny e.g. on a PCB.
2. Should be so “basic” that there isn’t any copyright, or trademark infringement
3. Should be easy to be reproduced
4. Should be black and white -NO COLOURS-!
5. should have the possibility(no obligation) to write the meaning “open Hardware” or “Open Source Hardware” beside the logo (see for example the creative commons logo)
6. Of course: Should be good looking to have a great acceptance.
A very good example for all this is the creative commons logo
Therefor I like non of these really. Since I don’t have the chance to choose “NON OF THESE” The best in my eyes is
-95-GEARED: In two alternative Versions. The middle one as small logo and the one at the bottom. WHY: Without altering the logo to much (like the one on the top) you can write the meaning.
Also the “gear” could also be the Lines on a PCB – or- a gear so it matches both worlds in a great way.
Agree 100%. Let’s go back to the drawing board and return with a Top 5 or 10 that meet these criteria.
And there must be some trained graphic designers out there willing to help. I’ve found a couple myself that are coming up with some concepts for this.
Pingback: Electronics-Lab.com Blog » Blog Archive » OSHW Logo Public VOTE!
I like the golden orb logo because it looks like the current open-source software logo, except it’s a gear, thus indicating the hardware nature side. If Open Source in general is going to be noticed, it needs an easily recognizable sign, in this case, the broken O.
Look boys, if Open Source is going to succeed worldwide as a popular form of hardware, let alone software, we need a set and easily distinguishable identity. Because the open-source logo is already the green broken ring, the golden orb is the best because it matches up with the identity of logo. This is my argument and I think I present a valid point.
@M5000 : The OSI logo is trademark protected so the 16- Golden Orb might be a trademark infringement as it is very similar.
I still don’t get why the OSI is the same logo as for OSSW. You think it would make sense if OSI was a governing body for all OS segments.
I am for the Iconographic Microchip.
It is simple, yet easy to understand and I think it is beautiful!
@Harald, The potential trademark issue is a good point, but I imagine OSI would be willing to allow use of the Golden Orb logo. Bruce Perens (cofounder of OSI) was one of the screeners who filtered the original 129 logos to this list of 10.
These 10 are the best of the 100+ submissions? To be honest, I’m not a fan of any of these. I feel like the logo should be something that is intuitive and clear in its message. I also believe it should include the letters OSHW. But the 3 finalists that do include this notation leave much to be desired on the non-text logo end. I hope that this vote isn’t the final determination…
A concern about 28 – Copyleft Chip… If used without the optional text, it could be confusing. When printed on a pcb for example, it could easily be view upside-down… making it look like a standard copyright symbol with a chip-styled circle. There’s nothing in the logo to provide orientation. The logo must be unambiguous.
Logo competitions are always the best path to mediocrity. I’m convinced that if we put our collective minds together we can surely end up with something homogeneous….
I know people are making money in this field, would it have killed them to pool some money together and just hire a reputable agency to design a quality mark. Yes this is DIY culture and blah blah blah, but logo competitions always end up this way, with some sorry little piece of crap mark that doesn’t offend or inspire anyone. Congratulations YOU DID IT!
I can’t wait to employ 100 electrical engineers to compete for fixing the PCB on my laptop… reward being my personal admiration – when does that competition start?
I don’t like any of them. Each entry has something wrong with it, and none of them have that pizazz that is the mark of a good logo. Either hire a professional team, or re-open the competition.
I personally like the current logo used on Sparkfun products better than all those posted above. The design is very clean and simple.
I’m not happy with any of these. I agree with those post from Sparkfun: “if you want the best design, invite a selection committee of the most instrumental people IN DESIGN, not electronics. Letting engineers choose your logo is like letting Helen Keller drive your car.”
Either the logo’s are too busy; or it is not clear in which orientation the logo is made in. Especially the copy left stuff, doh. The quality of these logos is not good enough. If it looks simple and good ill put it on all my stuff, but im disappointed by the quality of the designs.
Agree with FDP. I like the copyleft logo — it’s simple and elegant. Nice job.
I love the geared one, I feel ike it would print well on a pcb, and its simple. But the one without text, its more universal
I wish there was a better way to make the copyleft one appear directional! I like it a lot, but agree w others that it looks copyright if its upside down. The strongest contender is for sure the one inspired from osi.
Maybe a designer works with the creator of the winning project to address any design/technical/other issues before it’s final
That’s a great idea. That would be a great way to refine and perfect it. Wow! 7085 votes, this is incredible. Last time I looked it was 5000 I think. Exciting!
Oh btw, turns out the rendering problem is from micropoll. Apparently they don’t support including images in the polls yet, and that’s causing the table to appear all weird. Sorry about that :s
I’m surprised openkey (84) got so few votes. It’s really elegant, professional looking, and all around perfect. We need to rally for it!
Late Saturday night, leading entries were “Golden Orb” and “Copyleft Chip”. Just a few hours later, this Sunday morning “Golden Orb” is left with 18% and “Copyleft Chip” have exactly twice that with 36%.
Someone have been playing dishonest games tonight !
Please have a look at the logs for that period of time.
Needless to say, I support Golden Orb as the continuation and extension of the Open Source logo as defined here : http://www.opensource.org/logo-usage-guidelines
+1 to this. Not sure what happened, but it sure looks fishy (at last count copyleft chip is 40% to 17% for golden orb).
Agreed, I noticed the same thing and that’s a statistical anomaly that begs a closer look. Something is fowl here.
And apparently I have birds on the mind. Should be foul, not fowl.
I’m one of the “designer”, and I totally agree, there is a big problem with the votes. I mean, come on guys, how is it possible that suddendly one of the entry gets a 20% bonus. My own entry, Geared, is magically back to the 2nd place with 19% right now. Golden orb is down to 16%. There is nothing to explain this change.
Clearly, someone is cheating. Who ever is that guy, he is so stupid. I mean, what’s the purpose ? There is nothing to win, it’s not a contest, it’s just a logo selection. When i post my logo on the forum, it wasn’t to beat the previous entry, it was to contribute to the community effort, it was to put some new ideas on the table and see if that could inspire others, more talented designers. It was for a kind of brainstorming. I’m not a professionnal designer, clearly, but i was truly enjoying the friendly spirit on the forum. I’ve tried to improve my logo several times, and each time there were useful comments made by people aware of the true purpose : get a nice logo to support the OSHW movement. I don’t care to be the one that designed the logo. I care to be one of the people involved in the community effort.
By the way, number 95 geared, wasn’t my favorite logo (i prefer my last entry with the arrow), it wasn’t intendd to be the ultimate logo. It’s the reason why i’ve put several varations on the same design. And i don’t understand why the commitee haven’t choosed one of the 3, and put them all to the public selection. It’s disturbing.
The golden orb logo really please me because of its proximity with the open source movement. It’s not fair to let that go because of a stupid guy.
Who can’t understand that? Shame on you, cheater!
Indeed the jump was a little too sudden. We are investigating and will get back with results.
This process would have been better served by enlisting the help of a commercial branding service.
I understand that this is a community-driven effort, and I don’t think spending a little bit of money to get an extra-quality logo would have done any harm at all to the efforts the resulting logo would forever be applied to.
It is extremely easy to criticize the logos which feature English-specific or PCB-specific features, and criticize them validly.
Now, I see there’s the potential for voting fraud.
This selection process is travelling quickly down the road to mediocrity. Don’t feel for a second that the community would be disappointed if you called this vote off and decided to regroup.
The spirit of Open Source Hardware, and the logo, are too important.
It wouldn’t be giving up.
Ok, the vote fraud situation is becoming clearer. I wrote about it in the Sparkfun discussion and this morning, the whole threads with my comments have been erased (whoever did it, it was a very dumb idea that might bite you in the back).
So I repost here the math that prove something very wrong happened. The post was a reply to a Sparkfun employee who mentioned the vote change that occurred during the night could be due to a school computer lab voting “en masse”, or some cultural bias as it was the day in other parts of the world.
Here is my deleted post:
If you carefully look at the numbers, you’ll see that something very wrong happened, and it goes beyond a computer lab voting all for the same logo or some cultural bias.
What happened is, in a few hours more votes were made for this entry than during the previous week, while relative voting volumes for all other entries stayed the same and absolute volume for them was very low.
Let’s do the maths:
As of now (Sunday March 27, 14:05 Eastern time), there are 10096 votes, 2777 votes happened today, so before today there were 7319 votes;
Of those 7319 votes, “Golden Orb” and “Copyleft” each had 21%, that means around 1537 votes for each;
Today, with a total of 10096 votes, “Copyleft” have 40%, that means 4038 votes;
So, out of the 2777 new votes today, 2501 were for “copyleft” (90%) and only 275 went for all others combined.
It looks like Banana republic. The vote have been rigged big time and something must be done about it.
Since that, I tried to see how the “micropoll.com” polling system vote works and I found out it’s a basic cookie system. Among the erased comments there was one about a guy who wrote a little python script to automate the ballot stuffing and prove the point.
So I just posted about it in the Sparkfun forum in reply to someone else who noticed the problem … let’s see how long it stays there 😉
Yep, the whole thing is rigged, and anyone can do it :
Remove the cookies for micropoll.com, reload the OSHW page and vote again, and again, and again …
This is ridiculous and the whole process needs to be stopped.
BTW, some comments (including mine with calculation proving 90% of Sunday votes were for “copyleft chip”) have been removed from this board (you can see 32 comments and the total is still 45).
@viewer no comments have been erased on this page. I assure you. Let’s please keep this civil and not throw around accusations. As i said in my last comment, we are discussing the issue with micropoll and will disqualify any rigged votes.
Please everybody keep in mind this is a volunteer effort, and we are doing our best, there are no conspiracies to be worried about. Whoever went through the trouble to write scripts to rig the vote (unless it was for testing) should be ashamed of themselves.
On the contrary, we should be happy, this whole process has proven to all that the community is active, concerned and hundreds of eyes are better than some.
It’s open source at work!
If you carefully read my post, you’ll see I mentioned posts being deleted in the discussion for the OSHW topic on the sparkfun.com website, not here. Sorry if this was not clear enough.
I have a PDF printout to prove it.
I believe viewer was referring to their posts on Sparkfun being removed.
@viewer, sorry about that, no need to prove it, i believe you!
Again, thank you all for this. Indeed I do see some ip addresses have put in an outrageous amount of votes. We are seeing about disqualifying them, and that should solve the problem. In the meantime, we enabled some security checks. Please try multiple-voting again, does it work?
Thanks for the fast reply.
I just voted … again (you can remove 3 for golden Orb, as it’s the one I voted for … 4 times) and the one I support for reasons I explained in the Sparkfun forum … before that thread was also removed, to be replaced by a triumphant “Copyleft Chip, ftw” (FTW=For The Win).
Regarding the poll, removing cookies for openhardwaresummit.org and micropoll.com (Firefox 4 RC2) seems to do the trick as I could vote again. Security checks must be way more sophisticated (limitation of votes by IP, browser fingerprinting, burst votes elimination, capcha, etc …) and even that is not foolproof.
It’s sad a vote for a logo does have to be protected this way but it would be very interesting to dig into those IP addresses you got and find out where they come from.
The new security check added was a limitation to one vote per IP, so it’s weird that you were able to multiple-vote again.
can you email me on info AT openhardwaresummit.org so we can discuss this further?
It looks like you can vote again, but it doesn’t tally the vote. I checked and watched the vote numbers.
Bill is right. The IP limitation works. Even if you are able to vote multiple times, only one vote per IP is counted. We are now working with micropoll to disqualify the problematic votes and we are all set.
In the meantime. VOTE AWAY!
thanks all for your help
Pingback: Electronics-Lab.com Blog » Blog Archive » OSHW Logo Public VOTE! at Logo Ideas!
Trying not to give away too much information, I must say, an IP limitation is still very easy to bypass. It’s still very possible for one person to vote thousands of times. Obviously, adding much more security would mean the poll would have to be fairly restricted, which is unfortunate…however, I feel a false win is much more unfortunate. Perhaps one measure, that wouldn’t stop anyone from voting the right way, would be to add a captcha or something similar.
Sorry but these logo’s are really disappointing. I just didn’t vote for any, as it will never be a success
Pingback: OSHW Logo Public VOTE! at Logo Ideas!
I particularly like [3- Iconographic Microchip], because rather than electronics specifically – I view it as ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ arounbd a stylised process – which can any process, mechanical, electronic or procedural. With the gapped corner indicating the extensibilty of the open foundation.
With permission – I’d like to use it anyway, as it’s easy to reproduce, and exhibits all the featrures I’d like to express ni my combined project output.
If anyone wants to get anal, then put a cog, spark or other character inside the process to specify an individual field of development.
Pingback: Open Source Hardware? « Spencer's Technical Diaries
I like #9, it kinda looks like FSM
I mean 4
14- OpnKy and 84- Open-Key have too much in common with the wifi logo. Therefor it is not clear what the meaning would be of such logo’s. Just the letters ‘OSHW’, with or without a robot, don’t tell the visual story.
In my opinion 16- Golden Orb is the only logo that’s telling the story simple and clear. Both in text and visual. If I could not read, 16- Golden Orb would still tell the story visually and therefor is the best choice…
I don’t know if someone allready mentioned that,but to people unfamiliar with OSS and the stuff we do most of these logos wouldnt mean ANYTHING
Imagine a person coming across a piece of open hardware if that piece had some obscure symbol on it it would just be dismissed
so put the words “OPEN HARDWARE” on it and people will find out more about the project
and you’ll put the idea of open hardware in their head
what I mean is “open hardware” is easy to google
i think copyleft has more of a sophisticated logo and meaning 😉
It certainly got something else that was also more “sophisticated” … 😉
It looks like things are finally starting to settle down with the voting issues, but I can’t tell if the tallies are correct. Copyleft chip has still roughly double the votes of golden orb and geared. I would have expected the totals to be much closer to being equal once the “bad” votes had been thrown out.
I fail to see how it settles down. The “outrageous amount of votes” for “Copyleft Chip” and then for “Geared” as the designer for this entry (user “Aestros”) mentions have not been corrected yet.
The graphics on the micropoll page shows 3988 votes for Sunday march 27th (more than 10 times the average for other days), but it will go away tomorrow as the daily historic data is kept for 7 days. I guess then, without any remaining traces, “Copyleft Chip” will win by a wide margin.
However, if you have a look at the calculation I posted earlier, you’ll see around 2500 votes going for it on the 27th. Using 420 votes (the highest voter turnout for other days this week) as a reference and even giving 35% of these real votes to it, there are still (2500 – (420*.35))=2353 fraudulent votes. And my calculation was when there was only 2777 votes, more than 1200 other highly suspicious votes were added later during that day.
As of now, here are the vote counts for the first 3 main contenders, Blue orb ( 2124 votes), Copyleft chip (4403 votes) and geared (2246 votes). Remove my very conservative count of fraudulent votes and you get :
– geared (2246 votes and maybe less as the author himself mentions),
– Blue orb ( 2124 votes minus 3 = 2121 because during my tests, I managed to vote 4 times 😉 ),
– Copyleft chip (4403-2353=2050 votes).
We’ll see what the official result is, but IMHO, the whole process was so blatantly rigged the result should be discarded no matter who “wins”.
I missed the explanation on the main page. Sorry for that.
Most of the fraud have been done through a proxy, however, 220.127.116.11 belongs to http://www.physio-control.com/
Timestamp for the attacks should allow to easily trace back whoever did it.
I like the “4-OSHW Connections” cause it reminds me of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Needs some eyestalks though, for the complete effect.
Pingback: Open Source Hardware Logo
I voted for 95-geared, but specifically for the top logo in the image.
i very much like two of the winning designs.
i must say i am against anything that contains words of a sepcific human language in it, this will divide the effort and split the logo amongst the various human languages.
a single letter like ‘C’ is OK, its simple enough and sort of universal.
Pingback: Dr.X 实验室 » Blog Archive » 开源硬件Logo公选结果 - Because open source matters!
Pingback: Show your support for Open Hardware | Seeed Studio Blog
Pingback: Vote no logotipo que representará o OSHW - Hardware Livre