Sunday, October 19, 2008

IceHL: Slight Change In Plans

Just wanted to update everyone on the status of the IceHL project. As you've seen, the final names for the South Division have been posted. You've got the next three weeks to design and submit your logos for that division.

Which brings me to why I'm writing tonight. I expected to have the logo ratings pages posted for the Pacific Division this weekend. Obviously that hasn't happened. The trouble is figuring out the best way to present and rate the logos that have been submitted. The idea I had in mind fell through.

Ideally, you'd be presented with a slideshow which would display each logo set one at a time. You'd rate it and move to the next one. Unfortunately, without some sort of automated process, that is going to take me quite a while to build and I just don't have the free time for it.

So I'm exploring new ideas. That means the logo rating process will not begin this week. It may be next week or later. But in the meantime, we've still got other things to do. Keep the logo submissions coming for the three divisions that are open. I'll be posting the name ratings pages for the Southeast Division tomorrow at some point — haven't had time to build those pages this weekend.

If anyone out there has any ideas for me, I'm all ears. Just drop me a line.

And tomorrow I'll be offering a preview of the logos available for the Central Division. Surprisingly, there were a lot fewer submissions for this division. There were 42 submissions for the Pacific Division yet only 24 for the Central. They're quality designs for the most part but it just means you won't have as much to choose from.

While I'm here, I thought I'd address a minor issue that seems to have popped up regarding team names. I mentioned earlier not using the Houston Apollos because there was an old Central Hockey League team with that name. Others have asked why I didn't disqualify the Montreal Olympiques for a similar reason — the Gatineau Olympiques of the QMJHL. The answer is in the city. It's that simple.

I'd prefer not to use the same identity of a team that already exists whether it be pro or semi-pro — especially in the hockey world. You can complain all you want about how the rules don't seem to be evenly applied — and I know there are those of you that will, but I don't look at things as black and white. I look at what's relevant to a situation.

I hope that helps explain things. I'd be happy to answer any other questions by email.

6 comments:

heron_34 said...

any chance we can get a do over on the houston voting then? cause i know personally the apollos was the only name that i voted for and hellcats just sounds awful....

Canis said...

Tough call Chris. Perhaps you should just post the images on a Flickr account and have a right in vote. I know the ineractive part seems so convenient but with such a colossal group of images a proverbial "vote board" might be the better part of valor. Just a suggestion.

Ksy92003 said...

Maybe you could do the same thing as the team name logo pages, but instead of putting the name, put a link to a separate page that contains the logo.

That, or just put all the logos together on a page and number them, and put the numbers on the rating page. Whatever you think is best, I'm good with.

And I'm really interested in the next division's logos. Amazing how many great designers submit their concepts, and that I'm not one of them.

Puddleglum81 said...

Hey Chris,
I wanted to address the number of submissions issue. I would love to work on several logos at a time but with only 1 week between due dates, I don't have time! I think you would be wise to back out the due dates to 2 or 3 weeks apart instead of one week. I think you would have better submissions and the quality of work would improve. We're not in a hurry anyway are we? Why not get it right? Why not extend the due date for the second group and then move the ones for the rest. Just a suggestion, keep up the good work.

Chris said...

Every division has a submission window of three weeks from when the names were first announced. I think that's a sufficient amount of time.

afireinside31133 said...

The amount of time window is perfect because it makes the whole process more like a real life situation with unmovable deadlines. Three weeks is plenty of time bro. You just need to pick your battles and maybe not submit one for every single division

Post a Comment