While I understand your point that Pixish isn’t really for designs, I don’t understand the separation of illustrations from “designs”. As someone who sucks at illustration, I tend to think of it as a rock solid skill that requires a lot time and effort, and most definitely in the design category. The inclusion of several logo projects is a key example of designs that are illustrations.

In fact, those worry me a bit more than Web site designs, because the logo goes to the very heart of a brand. I’m not sure what could be done to address that concern, or if a solution exists, but I think it worthwhile to investigate.

I can see how this started out as a great idea, and fully understand the passion behind it, and I’m really happy to see that you see the flaws and are correcting them.

Grouch – Derek’s follow-up, his work in the past and recognition of this issue give me hope that he’ll address the issues. Mistakes happen, and it’s hard to own up to them and change course, I’m definitely willing to give Derek the benefit on the doubt on this one.

I just wanted to say that the concern over spec work is understood on our end and we’re going to be making some changes to the site to make it more clear that it’s not what the site is about. Remember, we’re still in beta. We released it early to gather feedback, so thanks for that!

Remember that Pixish is not really for “designs.” It’s for photos and illustrations – images that, nowadays, are either stolen or paid $1 for on microstock. We think we can do better.

Here’s more thinking on the subject: http://pixish.com/news/3

In the end, Pixish isn’t going to be for everyone, and that’s okay. But I hope you’ll give us some time to figure this out. Come back in a few weeks and give us another look, ok?