2008 HN discussion from when the outgoing &quot;little blue g&quot; favicon was introduced:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=211518" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=211518</a><p>In it, Dustin Curtis criticizes Google (rather rightly, in my hindsight-enhanced opinion) for a Marissa-Mayeresque design process of &quot;Make 300 logo variants with pseudorandom permutations, and then pick your favorite.&quot; Looking at those permutations now (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;2.bp.blogspot.com&#x2F;_7ZYqYi4xigk&#x2F;SEnK37orPGI&#x2F;AAAAAAAAAp4&#x2F;gR3gdZ6sgbU&#x2F;s1600-h&#x2F;favicon_iterations.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;2.bp.blogspot.com&#x2F;_7ZYqYi4xigk&#x2F;SEnK37orPGI&#x2F;AAAAAAAAAp...</a>) it&#x27;s obvious (again, with the benefit of hindsight) that they were all very inside-the-box. Apparently nobody even considered trying a different font.<p>This pg comment from that thread turned out to be particularly insightful, given today&#x27;s news: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=211649" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=211649</a>