Site needs a new name

This is quite true. Where there is an abbreviation that is not widely accepted, common, or well-known, it could mean any one of the known (or even unknown) abbreviations.

DigitalRev TV as I mentioned above in my reply to Bob, was the most popular YT channel about photography. Having Rev in its title did not hold it back, though it was quite evidently a gear review channel, so there was little doubt was Rev stood for. Though the fact it was called 'DigitalRev TV' not 'DigitalReview TV', did help it I think.

In our case here, this isn't first and foremost a gear review site (as DPR originally was before their forum balanced that). So Rev, which we kinda all assume must mean Review is misleading, in fact we probably take it to be an abbreviation of the original DPReview site. That it's slightly cryptic I'm not totally against, I stay open, though as you guys might be guessing I like clarity, not obfuscation. So it's rather up in the air for me, but on the whole I think it's ok, better than longer versions with don't really mean much either, like Evolved (ok evolved is a word not an abbreviation, but I don't really need 'evolved' in the name, and it makes the previous sound larval).

On many levels these do not work, IMO.

Why underline? is it a link, an extra important word in a sentence, or a title from an old book may 50-100 years go. When I look I see underline, underline, underline, underline. Loose the underline.

Why all lowercase, and why is dp so much larger than revived? - the dp is about to eat revived, or drive over it.

The italic D is super annoying, like a fly that wont go away. I know that the word revive is within revived (like many words ending in ed) - no need to point it out every time we read the name. It's almost like we are at a systematics class deconstructing words, we're not.

Italics, make no sense, unless this is a car review site testing speed etc.

Green, makes it look like we're selling eco batteries. Unless we are all about eco credentials (or landscape photography only) I think it's trying to be too PC.

Blue has an acceptance and presence in the photo-world. It also is accepted in other sphere's as well, such as legal bodies, or the old background for Windows OS (which was supposed to appeal to offices) though often there it tends towards greyish cyan. The bright blue is more photo, maybe it's from lenses - the glass - often symbolised by blue? - not sure why, but blue is used for photo and optics. Keep with what's given. We could try something else, less used, like a hot orange, but not so sure.

Once a colour is chosen (i.e say blue) it can be offset by a second colour (or black or white), but by adding a third colour it makes a title or logo become a fairground, and the actual name much harder to read (ok it can be read, but the colours really vie for attention for no reason). The obvious three would be RGB, but that's cheap, and distracting.

Add all the above up, and into the mix, and the name become the least of it. Its should be the most of it.

As I mentioned I initially knocked up 20 versions, this is what I often do, rather then tunnelling into one version, and then often making it worse! Having more options, made by oneself, makes one honest about which one is best (and it might not be the one you've spent days working on!). All my 20 options I'd say were ok contenders, but chose one which was one of the most simple, mainly because it 'worked' - and didn't need more. If it doesn't need more, don't give it more.

There is also the case where we might have a neat title (i.e not too complex) and a more 'designed' 3D logo.

I'd go at this again once the name has been decided (I currently think dpREV is best, but there might be another we haven't explored yet), so don't want to offer another round of examples again right away, I'll wait until Bob has a plan...

Going back to somewhere near the top of this thread, I came to the same conclusion having fleshed the subject out, that actually Revived is ok
...photography is kept alive and hopefully isn't a zombie.

I also think Rev could be ok. I'm remaining open to either - or a better one.

Anyway back up the top, where I first offered a kick-off basic text logo (another more graphic logo could still be relevant in addition), I suggested my whole 'issue' with the name, might just be a lower & upper case issue. I still keep reading DPRevived as Deprived, and somehow find the balance slightly ugly (yes I'm being picky!). With DPReview, 'review' is a shorter word and more common so it reads quickly and clearly, also they have two 'logos' a name and a graphic disk, the name is all in uppercase. They had top designers working on it, again not that it should be copied but there are reasons for decisions, they went with all uppercase - DPREVIEW.

DPRevived doesn't read quickly and clearly (I could say it does, but I have to be honest and it doesn't read well). As well as 'Deprived' it can also look like DPR evived, weird, or I just don't know what, I almost break out in a sweat reading it, wondering what the word is.

Hence the simple conclusion to me (but not for everyone) was dpREVIVED...

In terms of the above, I much prefer the cleaner light background versions, which might mean placing the text within a light background shape - to remain as is on a dark theme (rather than using a dark version logo), anyway such stuff is down the line.

Mainly and firstly we should all decide that revived is the one, or rev or something else. That as you say the site already has a name, is true, and maybe we should all work with that; it is an ok-ish name when it can be read and understood clearly.

I think I'll leave it here! - until (and if) some further developments come to light on this front.

Start bashing my ideas below - maybe I'll learn something today :)

I'll stay with the party...

How about an optical 'light-path' graphic?

Bringing together a widespread community to a point of focus :