I’m stumped, looks good to me – I could see this selling too.
Sorry I can’t be more helpful!
You have to register to post on the forums right…?
Maybe this guy should sell an ebook of his never-seen-before SEO secrets !!11
Remove the full stop at the end:
For what it’s worth, I agree with you – but I would like to put the opposite point across.
If he had literally taken your file and repackaged it then sold it on, they’d have removed it in a flash. Problem is, its obvious from close comparisons of the two files that he has made it from scratch but heavily copied your style.
The problem for the reviewers is that if they remove the file it sort of becomes a ‘case file’ type thing for other authors in the future. What is stopping webtreats from demanding that most of the hundreds of glass text effects be removed because they have clearly just done it because his has sold so well. Same thing for Smirnoff and the box shadows, I’ve seen a couple of those appear and sell well since he came up with it.
It’s dangerous for them to remove it and publicly state they won’t tolerate people directly copying each others files, because it seriosuly handicaps newer authors – there are only so many ways to style some of the basic web elements.
...just a thought. As I said, I agree with you – but I can see why they are taking their time before deciding. It might have further repercussions on their policies (particularly as you’ve made it quite public).
...also the file will be rejected if you just directly include the logos of social media companies.
For example, a twitter icon can be in the light blue associated with twitter, but you can’t just use their ‘t’ logo, you have to make something yourself (i.e. a twitter bird for example).
The RSS icon is the only one there which I think they will allow.
and it’s a tie . The whole game kept me on my toes though. It didn’t matter to me who wins in this game.
It matters to us! We’re better than you
England: 1 England: -1 (America: 0)
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
You’ve had two items soft rejected. In one instance, you fixed it and it was put back in the review queue to be looked at again before publishing. In ther other instance, the reviewer decided that it was a minor thing and jumped you through the queue once you rectified it. Am I correct so far?
If I am, then you’re complaining because a reviewer took the initiative and allowed you to by-pass the updates queue just to get your file on and this isn’t consistent with how they normally deal with files.
Fact of the matter is, if your file gets soft-rejected and needs updating, then it has to go back in the queue – it’s the same for everyone, you don’t deserve any special treatment. If a reviewer is kind enough to help you out just to get the file on, then the last thing I would do is come here and complain about it – it’s a sure-fire way to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
like a “Logo Construction Kit”... (that’s a good idea I think?)..
I agree, definitely a good idea – I might give it a go!
I know that the reviewers don’t like people selling logo’s because it’s legally tricky, but some nice elements which could be combined in various ways to make unique logos should be fine.
Definitely an improvement! I’m not saying the reviewer will thinks its enough of an improvement but it’s definitly heading in the right direction.
Because it’s quite a basic design, I would encourage you to include several color variations (and possibly even a layout variation), to give the file more value.
What do you mean by pixelated? If you are referring to the rays of colors, let me tell you that is deliberate.The rays are a little ‘stepped’ – rather than having smooth edges between the colors, if its deliberate then thats fine. It just looks to me a bit like you’ve created them in raster form at smaller (or bigger) dimensions and then free transformed them to fit the avatar. Just an opinion though – like I said, I think it’s really very nice.
Very nice! I’m also really curious to see your new profile image!Me too!