My point is regardless of whether you think it's silly, if you want people to read your content, it's beneficial for you to know if there's something that's provoking a gut negative reaction and leading someone not to read it. You may dismiss it as meaningless, and surely if it's only one person it won't effect your bottom line. But if 100 people do?

It's weird for people in this forum to all of a sudden suggest that quality of content is the only thing that matters. Consciously or subconsciously, other things drive readers towards or away from particular sites.

Since Boarding Area is a commercial venture, the suggestion that criticism of a blogs logo is somehow inappropriate seems off. The business decision made there is no more out of bounds than the criticism of airline personnel that fills these boards. Note, that's entirely different from saying you disagree with a criticism or think it's silly. I am responding to the post that seemed to suggest this was a wrongful personal attack. It is not. Plenty lovely people have terrible logos and plenty of garbage people have great ones.

it has nothing to do with superficiality of social media. Photos on book jacket covers have been around for decades. It's no different. Boarding Area aims to make each blogger a brand, and the blogs sell a lifestyle and a character just as much as they sell content and credit cards. Maybe we could all agree that all written material would be judged on the quality of its content alone, but then several of the most popular blogs would never have lasted. Indeed, the amount of high quality content on Boarding Area that isn't recycled/stolen from elsewhere would not sustain the number of blogs it has.