Opinion BY Armin

An Inconvenient Drop Shadow

For a company infamous for their optimization obsessiveness where every nano-second and shade of blue is a matter of life and death, a change as radical as the one seen above must not have come easily. E-mails to Brand New spotting the new logo in the wild started coming in as early as March February and while I was hesitant to post based on a few intermittent reports, it seems now the change is official and, like all things Google, a big deal. The change to the logo comes as part of a bigger redesign of the Google search experience that started to be rolled out yesterday for users in 37 languages — although I’m sure English is one of them, my own Google remains stuck in 2009.

Above: Old and new logos. Below: Old and new Gooooogle.

This change is the equivalent of having the music or TV volume at, say, 7, then turning it up to 11, having someone complain is too loud and turning it back down to 9, making it seem less loud, but still louder than before. A convoluted metaphor, but the new logo seems better because the old one was just so much worse, despite it being the exact same thing — structurally speaking, since the letterforms are exactly the same. By contrast, it is indeed an improvement and the change demonstrates how easy it is to get accustomed to something that isn’t quite as pleasant as it could be but the familiarity of it makes it seem pleasant. Perhaps three or five years down the road, we might actually see the wordmark by itself, no shading, no drop shadow… revolutionary!

Thanks to Lucian Marin Wayne Burrow for first tip.

Nuss’s comment is:

The reason behind flattening the logo was probably because you can compress images with fewer colors and larger areas of a single color more. The new one is probably a couple of bytes smaller (x millions of users = many gigabytes of bandwidth a year = cheaper and faster).

On May.06.2010 at 05:36 AM

Jonny’s comment is:

Much better. Thhe have also toned down the shadows and highlights on the lettering making the entire thing look less like a filter loving child designed it in photoshop.

A huge improvement in my mind, but I’d still expect them to strip it down further over the next decade until it was just text with solid colours and no shadow.

The new Goooooooooooooogle logo at the bottom though - Reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog….

On May.06.2010 at 06:14 AM

Remy Overkempe’s comment is:

I completely agree. The new logo only looks good next to the old one, because on its own it still sucks. I understand dramatically changing the logo might hurt Google’s brand recognition, but my god, it’s definitely in need of an update. Google never really grew up in terms of wordmark.

On May.06.2010 at 06:18 AM

Lewis’s comment is:

Wasn’t the original google logo just solid colour?

On May.06.2010 at 06:19 AM

Remy Overkempe’s comment is:

[I completely agree. However, the new logo …]

On May.06.2010 at 06:20 AM

Marcintosh’s comment is:

If I had to guess, the new logo has something to do with HTML5. The drop shadow on the new one is easily reproduced in CSS for a more uniform look across the UI. Someone said, “Make the shadow on the logo closer to the shadow on CSS menus” or something like that. I think it has more to do with the re-branding of the internet.

On May.06.2010 at 06:54 AM

RemyA’s comment is:

This new logo makes also official that Google is no longer a trade mark but a common word : the ‘TM’ disappeared ! :-)

On May.06.2010 at 07:21 AM

smirker’s comment is:

Not sure if I like how much brighter it seems. The shading on the old version (as much as I disapprove of B&E) muted the colours a little which I think’s a bit easier on the eye.

On May.06.2010 at 07:49 AM

Tim’s comment is:

The new one is definitely much nicer and cleaner.
However, I will not use Google anymore after realizing how evil they are. Using their Maps van to go around recording people’s wireless signals and MAC addresses so they know who exactly everyone is.

The new web layout is better, but obviously copies bits from Bing.

I’ll stick to Bing and Yahoo. Thanks.

On May.06.2010 at 08:05 AM

Nora Brown’s comment is:

Whew, I thought I was going crazy. I knew there was something different about the Google homepage. I’m shocked that they have eliminated the underline under some of their links as well — that is a big change for Google.

I think they should have gone all the way, and removed the shadow/3D shading altogether.

On May.06.2010 at 08:19 AM

Everett’s comment is:

The new design of the logo is marginally better, but I think rest of the changes they are making (here) take them ten steps back.

While the logo is ever-so-slightly simpler, their landing page and search results layouts are growing more complex. Google made a name for itself by having a great search algorithm and very simple presentations. The redesign takes them one step closer to clunky junk like Yahoo or MSN.

Google is chasing instead of leading.

On May.06.2010 at 08:29 AM

Chad Garrett’s comment is:

I think it’s a vast improvement, but it’s just too heavily saturated in color now. I can tolerate the red, blue, and green. But the yellow is just so ORANGE!

On May.06.2010 at 08:30 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

You know, it’s AMAZING what a tiny change like that can have on a good logo!

Great evolution, great work, I LOVE it!

On May.06.2010 at 08:31 AM

LB’s comment is:

Can logos really exist without a drop shadow and shading!? Armin, I think you’ve gone toooo far!

I’ve often tried to find words to explain why less than sophisticated identity can sort of become okay, or even considered good. But I think you said it very well, it’s the familiarity that is pleasant.

On May.06.2010 at 08:31 AM

JRSR’s comment is:

I gotta tell you… this one (even with the slight bevel) is enormously better then the original version. The entire search experience is a lot better as well. I wonder if this is in response to the use of graphics on Bing™. Well, OVERUSE of graphics, actually. Now if we can just get Google to allow for more pics on the page during an image search, we’ll be in business…

On May.06.2010 at 08:36 AM

Tim’s comment is:

Removing the dropshow is nice because it’s more simple.

BUT, it’s sooooo bright that the new logo hurts my eye.

And for those wondering, this was the FIRST EVERY original google logo.

http://www.google.com/does_not_exist

On May.06.2010 at 08:39 AM

Tymn Armstrong’s comment is:

I just visited google.com and it looks like they changed it back.

On May.06.2010 at 08:51 AM

Roth’s comment is:

Tom-a-to, tom-ar-to. As long as it keeps throwing up pictures of naked ladies i don’t care what it looks like.

On May.06.2010 at 08:56 AM

Jef’s comment is:

This has been showing up when I go to Google in Safari at home for months. It wasn’t showing on the PC at work and it was becoming annoying how ugly Google looked at work.

At the end of the day though, both logos are pretty ugly, the new one is just refreshing somehow. And the old one is depressing somehow.

On May.06.2010 at 08:57 AM

Andrew Kopietz’s comment is:

The logo refresh is a subtle change. I’m glad to see the harsh drop shadow finally gone from the mark. Love the contextual navigation on the side of the search result page. If you select ‘More’ from the drop down, you’ll notice an assortment of colorful icons that match the colors in Google’s logo. It’s a look that works because more of the wrinkles were smoothed out.

On May.06.2010 at 08:58 AM

Andreas Lanjerud’s comment is:

The drop-shadow is still there, and quite unfortunate on the letter “l”. But I guess it’s still a big improvement over the old one.

On May.06.2010 at 09:02 AM

Gunter Soydanbay’s comment is:

@ RemyA

Yes that’s what I realized too. Why the TM is gone?

On May.06.2010 at 09:11 AM

Chris Herron’s comment is:

Very well done. The distance of the shadow from the type in the old logo hindered legibility, especially from a distance. And the overt 3D bubble effect didn’t really make sense for the Catull typeface.

The shift of the second O towards orange gives it more weight, and makes the overall logotype more cohesive.

All in all, the designers maintained the equity of the logo, while eliminating/fixing its most apparent flaws.

On May.06.2010 at 09:12 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Very nice improvement, much cleaner. I’d like to see the drop shadow completely gone.

On May.06.2010 at 09:14 AM

Bryan Levay’s comment is:

Every time i look at it i’m amazed at what a terrible typeface it is. All the letters look like they’re about to topple over. In fact, i pointed out to someone that if you write anything in Catull other than Google, just looks terrible, and that’s probably just because i’m used to looking at Google in Catull. To me the only thing that SAVES the logo is the shading they’ve added to the text, giving it an extra kick in the pants in the heavier parts of the stroke. Looking at everything purely subjectively, i hate both. But, objectively, the new one is better, with much more natural looking contours and shadow. Very much LESS 1999.

On May.06.2010 at 09:24 AM

ChrisVentura’s comment is:

THANKYOU!!!

Finally! Although it is still the same it’s toned down. I goto school for design and first day of photoshop class I remember hearing the teach say do-not use every effect of words, bevel/emboss, dropshadow, innerglow, etc etc etc. Which makes sense, but then you had one of the most recognized companies logo and it looks like it was designed by someone that skipped that first day of photoshop class.

On May.06.2010 at 09:28 AM

David’s comment is:

Drop shadow or not, it’s still the worst logo i can think of.

On May.06.2010 at 09:47 AM

Eric’s comment is:

@RemyA, @Gunter Soydanbay –
By removing the “TM,” Google does not relinquish their trademark protection. A trademark is protected whether it bears the “TM” or not. In Google’s case, I would suspect it was removed just for visual simplicity.

The revised shading is nice refinement. The colors are now more colorful since the shadows are darker colors instead of color + black (most noticeable in the yellow “o.”) Photoshop-wise, it’s just like they changed the bevel shadow mode from “multiply” to “linear burn.” The smaller drop shadow is good too. It was too strong and competed with the lightweight letterforms.

Hopefully next round, they’ll change fonts. I’ve never been a fan of dimensionalizing calligraphy-based serif fonts, like Google’s (Catull BQ.)

On May.06.2010 at 10:06 AM

Markus’s comment is:

The new logo still has a small drop shadow…

On May.06.2010 at 10:15 AM

Mike G’s comment is:

More of a polishing then a re-design, I’d say. But a good one!

On May.06.2010 at 10:18 AM

Vaughn’s comment is:

A lot of people have been waiting for the day where the Google logo would step out of the 90’s.

On May.06.2010 at 10:18 AM

Proverbial Thought’s comment is:

Armin, it looks like the 1009 version only applies to your iGoogle account; mine is the same. But, when I deleted my cookies I got the updated version and; although a bit Bing-ized; it is much nicer.

The brighter, non-floating logo, subtle as it may be, ais light years better than its predecessor. Good job Google… Google the word “improvement” and you might just see their logo!

On May.06.2010 at 10:20 AM

Everett’s comment is:

A polished turd is still a turd.

On May.06.2010 at 10:30 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Let’s face it. Most online IDs are crap. Yahoo!, ebay, AOL… crap, crap, and crap. Google? Crap. This modest adjustment to their mark may be an improvement… but it’s still crap.

Which begs the questions, what roll does design play in business considering how successful these businesses are. I suspect most responses to this question will be… crap.

On May.06.2010 at 10:54 AM

Waiey’s comment is:

Honesty… who cares. There is very little difference in this logo. Yes, they cleaned up the drop shadow, thank you. To the people who are saying it hurts their eyes, you need to take a serious look at your life.

On May.06.2010 at 10:59 AM

Michael’s comment is:

I’ve always been a fan of the inverted white-only logo. Brings out the best of the iconic letters. Eventually going there, I guess.

On May.06.2010 at 11:02 AM

qwertyale’s comment is:

redesign OK
logo still looks like Disney animation title.

On May.06.2010 at 11:14 AM

jen’s comment is:

I agree with Everett. Well-said.

On May.06.2010 at 11:17 AM

jason Parry’s comment is:

Why is this even a post? Googles brand is no-brand. Also this isnt new. Companies adjust drop shadows or treatments of their logo all the time.

On May.06.2010 at 11:25 AM

Tim Gengler’s comment is:

Hopefully this will trigger everyone else to tone down the drop shadows and bevels a little bit more. As much of a non-story as such a small change may seem, I’m guessing it will have a great deal of influence.

On May.06.2010 at 11:40 AM

Mary Shu’s comment is:

Clearly an improvement, though still looks like a toy brand to me.

Way too garish and jolly for such a ubiquitous tool.

On May.06.2010 at 11:48 AM

AC’s comment is:

Have a look at some of the old logos using Internet Archive Wayback Machine : http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://google.com
Particularly : http://web.archive.org/web/19990427094925/www.google.com/

On May.06.2010 at 11:50 AM

Jonny’s comment is:

The new logo can be viewed ‘live’ on the French Google site - it does look much better: http://www.google.fr/

On May.06.2010 at 12:04 PM

Matt’s comment is:

The changes are really similar to those found in a redesign by Chan Karunamuni, I want to say late last year:

http://www.injectiondesign.com/google/newlogo.jpg

It was part of a ‘redesign google’ project, where he also made interesting changes to the results page:

http://www.injectiondesign.com/google/ (click on ‘Air’ at the top)

Both are big improvements to a pretty lazy (yet iconic) original.

On May.06.2010 at 01:11 PM

David’s comment is:

Way too saturated and the smaller drop shadow + embossment makes the letters look fuzzy.

On May.06.2010 at 02:04 PM

rolfsf’s comment is:

I’ve always liked the simpler version they use on this page
http://www.google.com/lkjsdf

;-)

On May.06.2010 at 02:12 PM

Chris Martin’s comment is:

Thank you for posting this. I thought I was going nuts when I suddenly re looked at the page count and thought to my self, man this graphic looks fresh and nice and just brushed it off like it wasn’t anything new. But this confirms that I did notice the small change.

On May.06.2010 at 02:49 PM

Req’s comment is:

Like it. Much improved. I always get lambasted for pointing out that it’s a bad logo, because, I guess of everyone’s familiarity. The yellow being more orange is good because yellow on white would be painful. And unlike others I’m not a big fan of the original - it just looks like it’s been typed out and coloured in on Word.

On May.06.2010 at 02:51 PM

Lisa’s comment is:

Thank the minimalist gods! I am always in favor of removing extraneous and distracting information. I like it flat and simple.

On May.06.2010 at 03:04 PM

Valt1’s comment is:

it isen’t an “New Logo” !!! We see it 6 month ago, in beta !

On May.06.2010 at 03:14 PM

valt1’s comment is:

Seee a update on wikipedia, it do it 1st december > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Newgooglelogo.png

On May.06.2010 at 03:16 PM

Michael Kozakewich’s comment is:

Actually, I think the most shocking change is the change from red to fuchsia. I would have thought it was important for them to stick with Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue, but they’ve altered a few of them subtly. It works, too, and you don’t even notice the change in hue.

On May.06.2010 at 03:29 PM

matt’s comment is:

I like it. The less-gray beveling is nicer and more photo-realistic, and I like the less prominent shadow. The colors are a bit less 90’s-00’s, and the overall design feels like a major but appropriate step in the evolution of Google.

By the way, have you seen the new YouTube video controls (only on YouTube.com, not embedded videos)? It has the same visual feel as this new Google design, and I really like it.

On May.06.2010 at 03:34 PM

Alec’s comment is:

I really like the improvement a lot. What bother’s me is that, why can’t Google make their logo transparent? There’s always a white background behind, why can’t tehy just make it transparent?

I really like how they cleaned it up, it’s a nice improvement.

On May.06.2010 at 03:45 PM

Kelli Annison’s comment is:

Looks like someone pushed for a small change and won the battle. Great job! :)

On May.06.2010 at 04:39 PM

morris’s comment is:

I don’t like the new “search bar” (where you type in the search terms) — it looks weird, like it’s misaligned with the cursor (at least in Firefox).

On May.06.2010 at 04:49 PM

morris’s comment is:

Also don’t like the the font used in “Google Search,” “I’m Feeling Lucky,” “Advertising Programs,” etc. — the letters appear really jagged

On May.06.2010 at 04:53 PM

ufoby’s comment is:

I just love the new one. This is just how Google had to look like.

On May.06.2010 at 04:56 PM

Old 67’s comment is:

Less poofy, I like it!

On May.06.2010 at 05:04 PM

Glenn’s comment is:

The new site is awful and a fantastic opportunity for other search engines to start conquer. The subtle logo change is alright however though not very necessary. Lets hope Google loose on this one, it could be good for them in the long run.

On May.06.2010 at 05:11 PM

monomatica’s comment is:

I do like it better, but I never really liked it.

On May.06.2010 at 05:32 PM

Allan’s comment is:

I always think it’s funny when a drop shadow is considered a part of a logo.

On May.06.2010 at 06:01 PM

ppdd’s comment is:

FWIW, they use the wordmark naked on their YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/google

On May.06.2010 at 06:18 PM

Canistel Design’s comment is:

i’m pretty shocked at how much better it looks with those small changes (eliminating the shadow and adjusting the gradients).. i’ve always thought it was such a poor logo for such a large company, but this shows that the logo really isn’t bad, it was just overdone.. i like it

On May.06.2010 at 06:33 PM

EK™’s comment is:

1. It’s brightness hurts my optics. 2. Why use a drop shadow? It’s barely there, just take it away. Does it not make it look fuzzy as David said? 3. Do the new colors have anything to do with enhancing the look on mobile device displays?

Here is a blog article on the redesign:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-design-turned-up-notch.html

On May.06.2010 at 06:46 PM

Ondra’s comment is:

Much better. But still ugly and weird.

On May.06.2010 at 07:04 PM

ufoby’s comment is:

So many of you here consider it bad and ugly and what not. Guys, do you all really think that good identity is just a beautiful one? I assure you, good identity is the one that works, means it’s recognized by people. Google was always very recognizable in spite of (or maybe even with the help of) it’s ugliness. And they’ve done really good job keeping things consistant (means recognizable) but making them fleshier and much more well-crafted.

My opinion is that new logo couldn’t be better.

On May.06.2010 at 07:31 PM

Benga creative ’s comment is:

As much as i prefer the so called newest logo over the previous one, i still think that google should get rid of the gradient and the drop shadow all together.

Benga creative

On May.06.2010 at 07:36 PM

aaron’s comment is:

I noticed last week the drop shadow was missing, but I never noticed anything else. I actually miss the drop shadow, it make the logo pop, it’s graphically ugly, but Google has never been one to follow the design rules.

On May.06.2010 at 07:48 PM

Stormchild’s comment is:

You realize the shadow is not the only difference, right? The heavy bevel has also been significantly softened, and IMO does more to improve the readability than the (also welcome) shadow change.

On May.06.2010 at 07:56 PM

aaron’s comment is:

No no, I can see the bevel differences which make it a whole lot better then before. But ignoring my design training, I kind of miss the drop shadow

On May.06.2010 at 08:32 PM

Joanthan T.’s comment is:

Once again, I sent a tip on this and never got recognition. I sent this tip back in October or November. Gee, thanks. >_>

Oh, by the way, Miracle Whip rebranded again. I should go ahead and put in my tip here. Maybe it’ll get noticed more.

On May.06.2010 at 08:48 PM

Nathan’s comment is:

Whatever you think of the new one, it’s absolute gold compared to these older logos:

Sourced from here: http://web.archive.org/web/19990508132024/www.google.com/stickers.html

On May.06.2010 at 08:54 PM

marcus’s comment is:

AHH! MY EYES! The colors are too bright now. What bothers me most is the goldish shade of yellow for the ‘o’.

On May.07.2010 at 01:08 AM

Joe Bloggs’s comment is:

I was interrested in the argument that the redesign’s goal was to save bandwidth, so I went and pulled the old and new logo out of their website and WHOA!!!!! a whole bunch of other cwap came with it!!!

Also, the new one is 33kb compared to the previous 8kb. Seems google is pinning their bandwidth hopes on browser caching rather than on trimming down image sizes.

On May.07.2010 at 01:14 AM

Neil’s comment is:

The reduced drop shadow - whilst being a step in the right direction - actually makes the letters look blurred. The green ‘l’ looks terrible.

On May.07.2010 at 04:37 AM

binoygopal’s comment is:

i love it!

On May.07.2010 at 05:40 AM

Ojasvi’s comment is:

What about the Inconvenient bevel & emboss?

On May.07.2010 at 06:59 AM

room34’s comment is:

I’m sure I’m in the minority here but I actually LIKE the yellow-orange O, shading and all. But that’s the only thing I like. As obnoxious as the “Teach Yourself Photoshop in 21 Days” effects were (and still are, just less so), the things I’ve always hated most about Google’s logo are the colors and the awful, awful font. I will never like their logo as long as they use that font. I especially dislike serifs on the uppercase G and the l.

That said, I don’t think there’s ever been a decent search engine logo, so maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Google.

On May.07.2010 at 07:27 AM

Courtney Joy’s comment is:

The lighting and shading on the second O seems off to me. It was actually a bit startling at first.

On May.07.2010 at 08:34 AM

Bart Laube’s comment is:

I think it looks better with the small drop shadow, but only because I am tired of big drop shadows, they are sooo 2007!

On May.07.2010 at 10:22 AM

Michael Perridge’s comment is:

The fact that it’s all a bit crappy is all part of the brand I thought. It’s not like they’re trying to appeal to designers is it?

On May.07.2010 at 11:59 AM

Abe’s comment is:

Looks like this:

http://bizbox.slate.com/blog/google.jpg

On May.07.2010 at 01:56 PM

Shikeb Ali’s comment is:

I loved the old logo, because the shadow was there to keep the feeling alive that something is above, and thats the most interesting thing about the Google’s search page. Its logo was the most prominent thing on the page just because of that (removed) shadow.

Anyways… Google is growing(more) and changing we have to get used to of that…

On May.07.2010 at 04:54 PM

NYC Designer’s comment is:

It is starting to look too plain and child like. Each update they do seems to make the logo more plain. Guess the drop shadow took too long to load on some peoples computers.

On May.07.2010 at 07:02 PM

Tori’s comment is:

Ahhh, who knew taking off that intense drop shadow would give me such relief?! Now if they could just fix the new search page layout that I’m not crazy about…

On May.08.2010 at 02:36 AM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

About time. I agree completely, Armin, that something familiar can become “good” or “right” simply through that expectation. I have this discussion from time to time with clients. I use this post I wrote a while back to demonstrate some of the complexities in logo design, and how expectations and associations can make “boring” wordmark logos into “great” ones.

On May.08.2010 at 12:40 PM

Gunter Soydanbay’s comment is:

@ Erik

Thanks Erik!

On May.09.2010 at 06:14 PM

billy ’s comment is:

@Nuss One thing I’ve never understood about Google’s obsession with optimization is that it’s usually predicated on an arbitrary assumption, i.e. “we should have a giant graphic logo on our page,” or “we should have blue borders of some pixel width in all our applications.” They noodle and tweak within these strictly defined parameters, never seeming to ask themselves, “how do we design something both attractive and functional?”

On May.10.2010 at 08:02 PM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

No where near slick enough.
An improvement yes, but as Everett so er, ‘beautifully’ put it “a polished turd is still a turd.”

Time to lose the shadow the bevels and the rainbow colours and rebrand altogether.

What are they frightened of?
Everyone migrating to another search engine through loss of recognition?
Are there any others???

On May.11.2010 at 03:14 AM

Coral Springs personal injury lawyer’s comment is:

Interesting look into the change of the Google logo. I wonder how many millions of people will see this change and not recognize that it has indeed been adjusted.

On May.11.2010 at 01:36 PM

Flavius’s comment is:

I much prefer the old drop shadow version. The new version reminds me of a toy store. If you didn’t know better, you’d think they were a brand of toys.

On May.12.2010 at 10:30 PM

mtness’s comment is:

@ eric:

I fixed some minor issues of the layout and did a little touchup in my userstyle:
http://userstyles.org/styles/25334

All you need is the ext stylish for firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108/

Kind regards, mtness.

On May.14.2010 at 06:30 AM

Abi’s comment is:

I’m a big fan. The new colors are beautiful, specifically the yellow, which seems more mature now that it’s richer and more golden.

It’s definitely one of those “step in the right direction” situations. As many have said, there is so much equity in the Google’s logo that any drastic change is a loss on their part.

On May.14.2010 at 11:28 AM

Nik Daum’s comment is:

Well, I think it’s better just for being more streamlined. Looking at the old version in detail, it’s amazing how bad the embossing was on some of the letters.

On May.14.2010 at 07:47 PM

Russ’s comment is:

I was in Laos recently and a street stall was selling a jumper with the google logo on it, as if it was a clothing label. No drop shadow is this case.

On May.19.2010 at 06:53 AM

cheap generic’s comment is:

I completely agree. The new logo only looks good next to the old one, because on its own it still sucks. I understand dramatically changing the logo might hurt Google’s brand recognition, but my god, it’s definitely in need of an update. Google never really grew up in terms of wordmark.

On Jun.09.2010 at 05:59 AM

Bugsy’s comment is:

Nuss’s comment:

“The new one is probably a couple of bytes smaller (x millions of users = many gigabytes of bandwidth a year = cheaper and faster).”

Brilliant!

On Jun.22.2010 at 09:14 AM

Laquita Monnin’s comment is:

Peter Szumski

On Jun.30.2010 at 05:32 AM

Jason Warth’s comment is:

They changed the blending mode of the bevel shadows from “Multiply” to “Color Burn.” It’s an improvement, but a lot more could be done.

On Jul.18.2010 at 11:35 AM

Scarlet Hardester’s comment is:

I especially appreciate the information you have provided, and the links shared on this topic. Your assistance has been invaluable to me during this process.

On Jul.23.2010 at 10:52 AM

UNLIMITED Traffic’s comment is:

That was interesting but I can`t agree at all.

On Jul.24.2010 at 11:29 AM

Mark’s comment is:

Good now if only they could get of that real ugly looking “g” then it would be prefect!

On Jul.24.2010 at 02:57 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I MEANT

Good now if only they could get of that ugly looking “g” then it would perfect.

On Jul.24.2010 at 08:43 PM

best work online job’s comment is:

Great post!

On Aug.05.2010 at 10:23 AM

Tamarac Locksmith’s comment is:

Thanks for posting this. I am fairly new to social media and my blog traffic is slowly increasing. I am fairly confident it’s due to me spending a good deal of time commenting on other blogs. Not only does it get my blog out there, but more importantly, I can keep up with what bloggers and readers are talking about! I also spend a great deal of time on Facebook and Twitter… But I really want to reach out to other bloggers in my same arena.

On Aug.06.2010 at 05:47 PM

g1 wallpaper’s comment is:

Yikes this really takes me back, i’ve been thinking about this for a while.

On Aug.25.2010 at 06:53 AM