First the “good”:

UPS – I don’t get why you reject logos for using cheap tricks like bevel & emboss and drop shadows, yet you (somewhat) approve of this rebranding. I think the logo is lost in the effects and it especially looks disastrous in websites. The new design would be very effective if it was still just the line work — like the old logo. As the re-brand stands now, almost everything is wrong with it.

The Bahamas – I read the report, and the research is good but the conclusion is missing the point in my opinion. This is not a logo but a simple type covered in decorations which really don’t tell me anything. Very generic use of symbols.

Argentina – I would have to see the branding to draw a definite conclusion, but the logo itself really doesn’t speak to me. The ribbons really don’t communicate any key terms unless you really want them to. It’s incredibly subjective.

Swisscom – I agree the logo looks much better than the old one, so in that regard I guess I could consider the re-branding a success. The problem however is that I can’t figure out what the new symbol actually is, which is not good for a brand. I would be irritated every time I see the logo, regardless of whether it’s aesthetically pleasing.

Gatorade – Beautiful typeface, and in general a succesful re-brand. It’s not perfect though. The lightning bold reminds me too much of the Winamp logo, which I consider a bad thing.

And now the “bad”:

Tropicana – This doesn’t seem to be a design error as much as it harms the confidence people have with the brand. I can understand that as a loyal customer you pity the fact that this recognizable orange with the straw isn’t on the package anymore, but that doesn’t mean the re-brand is bad. It’s not perfect and perhaps too generic, but not bad or worse than the old branding.

Wisconsin – Both the old and the new logo completely miss the point, however there’s nothing wrong with the peculiarities in the type. It’s just not suitable in this context. Why would you even consider something like cheese for the logo though? That’s not something that would speak to everyone in Wisconsin. It’s way too specific.

Mountain Dew – Not great, but not worse than the old branding. You’re being very subjective.

London 2012 – I’ve heard all the criticism and at first I was shocked myself. Not so much by the design, but by the cost of this particular design. Having said that, it grew on me more and more. Why does ’2012′ have to be very legible? It’s legible enough to understand what the logo means and what it’s for, and that’s the whole point. You’re thinking up criteria which are of little relevance to this particular logo/brand.
“The result however looks very amateurish and trendy”
Very subjective. Technically it looks proper — from the construction itself to the matching type of ‘London’. So where’s the amateur aspect? And what’s wrong with trendy? I thought it was actually the purpose to design a logo for the olympics 2012. Why would this have to be a timeless logo while it’s only used one year?

Xerox – I’m not a fan of the sphere with the cross myself, but at least the logo looks professional. The typography of the old logo was terrible and the symbol is dated.

Quark – I have to admit that the new logo is very unoriginal, but it does look professional (despite the cheap tricks used for the effects) and the color of the typography is much more balanced. I’m having a hard time believing someone would consider the old logo better than the new one.

AT&T – I think the type in the new logo is too light and inferior looking, but there’s nothing wrong with the symbol, and the inner lines are quite logical. A rather successful re-brand, and a good logo by itself.

Toronto Blue jays – I’m even getting annoyed when reading your comment on the re-brand. It looks much more professional, more mature. The maple leaf really had no relevance in the logo. As for the red… they’re called BLUE jays. The illustration is interesting enough so the red isn’t needed anymore. This is actually a very clever re-brand.

Citroen – The new type in my eyes really “speaks” the brand. As for the metallic effect on the symbols, I would normally be more eager to reject it, but faking the chrome of the symbol applied to real cars is really clever. I consider the re-brand a thorough success.

Also, I mean no offense, but check your grammar (learn the difference between ‘to’ and ‘too’) because I can’t take whatever you write seriously because of this.