It is also worth noting that Logolounge is basically an annual lottery with $100 entrance fee with the prize being an inclusion in one of their books. Not every logo designer enters, nor does the stuff they receive is all high-quality original work. So the trends they are seeing while interesting are not exactly representative.
Logo designs that look trendy have failed. A logo that looks stupid 2 years on is a waste of money.
Being readable / recognizable when small
Being readable / recognizable when printed in black/white/gray (fax/copier)
That may sound oxymoronic and/or very difficult, but that's why good logos are hard to do.
I don't understand why so many people write like this. It's a logo, not a metaphysical experience. It seems everyone involved with "design" read the Pepsi Redesign doc  and took it as a lesson in good writing.
In 2007, "Rubber bands" were cool. http://www.logolounge.com/article.asp?aid=hjP
In 2008, "Loops"
In 2009, "3D curls"
In 2010, such logos apparently became uncool. ;)
In 2011, these logos were back in style again, as "Banded"
I'm not denying that trends in design exist, but they tend to be much slower than year by year. This type of article is just about establishing Logolounge's brand.
I love it!
(Although I question whether the general audience would understand the point of the radar chart)
Even if they don't understand it at first, think of it as a well-liked art piece or a clever idiom that requires your friend to explain it to you first. Blowing minds with your logo - good idea.
It isn't just that it resembles a radar chart, though: on the site the (Flash) logo mutates to reflect the current temperature and wind conditions.
Also, brown is back!
maybe something isn't working for me? when i hover over it, all that changes is the text at the side, giving the weather info i just described.
i can't believe everyone thinks this is so clever just from looking at that page. is it well known through winning an award or something? in other words, does it require additional knowledge to appreciate? and, if so, doesn't that mean it's not as great as the cognescenti believe?