(if not in the appropriate forum, please move. but this is intended to start a broad discussion - not for advertising).

Recently a thread in the Advertising Forum about shared hosting prices turned into the beginning of a discussion. May I quote Phoenix

One thing that we could do at the grass-roots level before the government steps in and starts regulating us is develop a set of ethical and service standards, and pricing guidelines for our industry, and as many of as want to promote good quality hosting agree to them. Publish them somewhere online, with a list of the signatories-to show that these companies have committed themselves to more than just cheap hosting and disappointing customers


So let's share opinion about criterias for a quality host! Not size should matter but quality! Here are some thoughts of mine to start with:

Bad:
- not reacting to emails
- selling domains and not enter the customer as owner
- making cancellation of an account nearly impossible
- not giving refunds

Good:
- 30 day money back guarantee if dissatisfied with service

Hi,

Issue 1.
----------
What do you think should be the minimum uptime
gaurantee.

Let us also add those dedicated server provider, who can provide this uptime gaurantee and have proved it over time. This will help virtual hosting companies like us to choose the right dedicated server as well, which can help them to attain the standard that we all are trying to define.

Issue 2
----------
What about support documents ? I feel that there should be a minimum amount of documentation available to the customers through the hosting cmpany website.


Adding my 2 cents.

Abhishek

Issue 3

Web Hosting Company cannot advertise unlimited bandwidth, as it is false advertising (even if something IS stated in the TOS about limits, it's still misleading -- a big nono in the world of advertising).

Issue 4

There must be "some kind" of pricing standard set. We all know that 300megs and 20 gigs of data transfer for 4.95 a month is crock. They "MAY" be able to actually support that, but the QoS will probably go way down. Customers don't know this, especially ones who have never dealt with a hosting company before. They need to be protected in some way if we want the industry to regain its dignity.

Those are just 2 more cents. I'm sure I have more pennies lying around here somewhere. :)

I wish I could think about more issues, but there are so many!!!

For instance, "integrity and professionalism" is the #1 issue! Walter made a good point: not returning emails! A lot of hosts out there return emails after 2 or 3 days, some of them not even return them at all. We return our emails in less than 30 minutes. I think that if you are in this line of business you have you live, eat, drink and breathe in front of a computer!

Registering domains and not entering the customer as the owner? This is disgusting! And yet, there are a lot of "crook companies" out there that are doing this. Why can't there be some freaking regulation that would prevent these things for happening?

About the minimum uptime guarantee: Hard to tell. If you rely on another provider to sell web hosting then there is nothing you can really guarantee! How can you guarantee 99.5% uptime or something like that when you can't really tell if your provider will deliver that type of service?

Support Pages: I agree completely with Talash. Some hosts don't even have a single page for support other than the famous "support ticket" page. This is ridiculous; in this day and age everyone calls him or herself a "webmaster" which means that most of them don't know anything. Proper support including an extensive section of online documentation should be made available to the client. We have about 100 pages on our support section only.

Allera:

False Advertising:
Bingo!!!! It is very unethical to promote something that cannot be delivered! A friend of mine and I have this matchmaking/dating website in Spanish. We utilize about 50 to 60GB of bandwidth on that site alone. If I had more spare time I would get hosting from some of those companies just to try them out! I would probably end up making some money on a lawsuit! Everyone knows that this is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot give out unlimited anything!!! Especially for $4.95 /Month

My conclusion:
Talash is right. There MUST BE some kind of government regulation for the web hosting industry. A set of rules that could make this whole business more ethical, reliable and honest.

This kinda falls under the heading of registering domain names in the customers name...BUT, to add:

Hosts that make it next to impossible, or charge a fee, to let the customer transfer hosts.

Some openSRS RSPs are not giving the customer the proper login information for their domain control panel. Thus making it very difficult to login and change DNS.

--Tina

Aah, very good, keep on going! On the weekend I will write a summarization and post it either here or on a webpage.

Originally posted by bert
[clip]My conclusion:
Talash is right. There MUST BE some kind of government regulation for the web hosting industry. A set of rules that could make this whole business more ethical, reliable and honest.

God help us if we ever let the governments regulate this industry.

The consumer will be the ultimate judge and jury, and only the consumer. The companies that try to turn a quick buck will come and go, and some people will be burned by it - no doubt. The last thing I want to have however is government red tape and beaurocracy to go through to make a change to my business model.

Just say no to more government involvement in my business and my life! :mad:

Originally posted by Walter
Aah, very good, keep on going! On the weekend I will write a summarization and post it either here or on a webpage.

I just bought hostethics.com if you want to use it - I'll host it.

I'm thinking of a site that offers an award (yes, I know awards are cheezy - hopefully, this one might carry some respect) for hosts that comply. As someone else mentioned, we could also list hosts that comply.

Anyone else interested in this "grass roots" effort to improve quality and set standards for hosting companies???

--Tina

How can there even be a thought of governement regulation of an international industry? What about Canadian hosts? Slovakian? Upper Voltan? (You get the point). If the US Gov't even tried to regulate the industry (and frankly I don't see at all where it is even remotely necessary) all that would happen is the really skeevy hosts would go get servers in Canada or somewhere else. Won't solve a thing, just make it hard for US companies to earn a living.

My $0.02. ($0.04 Canadian).

Hi,

I think I have been misquoted somewhere ;)
When i am talking about control, I dont suggest a Government control. I want a distributed control. Example can only explain it better.

Say, there is a small group of companies like ours who agree to a set of standard which we draft here. We all become a member of this standard and can put on our site a copy of the standards along with a logo/sign that we are following this draft. It is totally a voluntarily effort and no body should be forced to follow it.

Then as this network grows through these hosting companies only, it gains people attention and make them quality consious.

It can also specify as what a customer should expect from his hosting company. This will make our life easier as well. Can you imagine the impact on a customer when instead of you, I tell your customer that helping him set his outlook express was not your duty, but if you do it, its a bonus. It not only increases our credibility, but also helps us in making a network of helpful hands for each other.

I hope I make a bit of sense :)

Abhishek
(talash)

Tina: :idea:
That's very very funny, I came just a few minutes too late, I wanted to do the same thing and saw that this domain is gone! Very fine, you safe me some bucks :)

An industry group that recognizes organizations that comply with certain ethical standards of marketing and service is a very good idea. These are not trivial to set up and manage however, so though I suspect you will get a whole bunch of me too posts for involvement, when it comes down to drafting the charter, forming the not-for-profit parent corporation, legal implications for liability protection, I suspect the comers will be few.

I've been involved in a couple of these in the past, and think it's a great idea. I however have no time to spend in the development of, and management of, same.

Without a strict set of guidelines, and an regulatory or oversight board, and rechecks of qualified member companies, the value of the logo diminishes to where it's just another logo on the site and has no real value.

-t

thewitt, you are right. I believe boards like WHT can do much to find black sheeps and make the customers aware of them. But having a site like the above mentioned hostethics will be a nice thing, you can refer every customer to it, can make links from WHT to this site, and so on.
Over time this idea may grow to something larger - but lets start small.

Of course over-regulation costs everyone in the long-run. However, what my mind boggles at is that hosting companies in the USA can get away with the deceitful and misleading conduct regarding unlimited bandwidth offers. The ones I'm particuarly talking about are where the host rellies on arbitrarily enforcinsing some vague terms of service which include some unspecified accpetable terms of use such as "undue load on the server", "degrade the quality of service to other customers". I'm no lawer but I'm damned sure that the national comsumer watch dog would come down on such a practice as this in my locale (Australia). I know they have taken on ISPs who essentially do the same thing (offer unlimited download - then try to reneg on the deal using arbitrary and vague acceptable use policies).

Here's something which needs to be standardized: bandwidth, and how it is measured. Ie, level 2 (IP) or level 5 (HTTP bytes-transferred). That difference in measurement can mean a 25% difference in the numbers.

For continuity, can we start a running list of what we deem important for our tentative "code of ethics"?

1. Register domain in customers' name.
2. Answer all emailed request for help within 12 hours.
3. (someone continue....and the next person please include the previous items, please)

This is such a great idea! Let's see what we can do with it! :) :) :)

--Tina

I have marked those that would requiere further discussion with three "?"

1. Register domain in customers' name.
2. Answer all emailed request for help within 12 hours.
3. Make cancellation of an account not unnecessary uneasy (??? and do not ask for a transfer fee)
4. Do not advertise things that you can't deliver (as unlimited bandwidth)
5. Provide support documents on the website
6. Uptime???
7. Prohibiting SPAM

Originally posted by thewitt
An industry group that recognizes organizations that comply with certain ethical standards of marketing and service is a very good idea. These are not trivial to set up and manage however, so though I suspect you will get a whole bunch of me too posts for involvement, when it comes down to drafting the charter, forming the not-for-profit parent corporation, legal implications for liability protection, I suspect the comers will be few.

I've been involved in a couple of these in the past, and think it's a great idea. I however have no time to spend in the development of, and management of, same.

Without a strict set of guidelines, and an regulatory or oversight board, and rechecks of qualified member companies, the value of the logo diminishes to where it's just another logo on the site and has no real value.

-t

i'm glad to see that the suggestion I threw out on the prior thread bore fruit. It's been something that I've been thinking about for quite some time now, but the time just didn't seem right.

I had a meeting yesterday with a marketing/bus dev consultant who is going to be working with us, and when I reviewed the current discussion with him, he agreed that a trade organization is necessary for the maturity of the industry.

He has a background in what is commonly called swag-promotional materials, and was a part of the early days of that industry. All you needed was a catalog and some samples to sell out of your car trunk in order to compete against the serious businesses--you didn't need to know anything about how the customers could best use the little trinkets that they were ordering, and a lot of the customers were getting ripped off.

The serious businesses banded together and set up a trade organization to keep these guys from ripping off the customers and making the whole industry look bad (sound familiar, people?). Although new fly-by-night swag sellers appear constantly, because they don't have the backing of the trade organization, they don't last.

Another thing a trade organization has, is power. Instead of a lot of little voices crying out in the wilderness, we have one BIG voice, and the government will have to listen to our standards if they decided to regulate us.

For now, at this grass-roots stage, it gives us the opportunity to define what web hosting should be, and how we should be fairly and honestly competing against one another.

In addition to a code of ethics that we should all agree to uphold, I propose that standards be set for every different type of hosting provider, and that identification of what type of provider you are be required-you don't have to say who you resell for, but your customers should know that you are a reseller, so they don't hold you responsible for an outage that is caused at a higher level than what you have control over.

A "bargain host" would have different uptime requirements than an HA host, a strictly reseller-based host would have different standards to meet than the company whose hosting they sell, a company who hosts other hosts' servers would have different standards to meet as well. And if everyone at each level adheres to their standards, then the whole food chain works.

So, shall we propose an across the board code of ethics (a hippocratic oath for web hosts), and then split out into our different categories and determine uptime, tech support, and customer service standards for each.

Once we've figured out all of this, and we've gotten people to agree to it-we can throw it up on a site, garner some publicity, and then we can start formally organizing things into a non-profit organization, etc. And elect representatives that reflect the membership of our industry, not just a bunch of big companies. I also believe that a mentoring program should be part of improving our industry. Old companies should help new companies get off the ground and started in the right direction. In the long run, that benefits all of us.

Originally posted by Phoenix


i'm glad to see that the suggestion I threw out on the prior thread bore fruit. It's been something that I've been thinking about for quite some time now, but the time just didn't seem right.

I'm glad you brought it up!


In addition to a code of ethics that we should all agree to uphold, I propose that standards be set for every different type of hosting provider, and that identification of what type of provider you are be required-you don't have to say who you resell for, but your customers should know that you are a reseller, so they don't hold you responsible for an outage that is caused at a higher level than what you have control over.


Yes, agreed.

A "bargain host" would have different uptime requirements than an HA host, a strictly reseller-based host would have different standards to meet than the company whose hosting they sell, a company who hosts other hosts' servers would have different standards to meet as well. And if everyone at each level adheres to their standards, then the whole food chain works.

I think uptime should be standardized across the board.

We are a "bargain" host - but one of the reason I started my company is to offer affordable, yet, QUALITY hosting. Too often cheap means crappy.

If we set forth different levels of uptime for bargain hosts...it could damage our reputation, as well as those in my niche' that strive to provide decently priced smaller hosting packages.

So, shall we propose an across the board code of ethics (a hippocratic oath for web hosts), and then split out into our different categories and determine uptime, tech support, and customer service standards for each.

Yes.

Once we've figured out all of this, and we've gotten people to agree to it-we can throw it up on a site,


BTW - I've purchased hostethics.com :)

garner some publicity, and then we can start formally organizing things into a non-profit organization, etc. And elect representatives that reflect the membership of our industry, not just a bunch of big companies. I also believe that a mentoring program should be part of improving our industry. Old companies should help new companies get off the ground and started in the right direction. In the long run, that benefits all of us.

I think we should start small - get a COE (Code of Ethics) together and post it online. From there, let's get a policy for our "award" and figure out how we will monitor and dole out the award. Everything else you mentioned should follow. I think, above all, this needs to be organized and respectable.

But, all that's just my opinion - I'm certainly willing to listen and work on this at any level. :)

One caution as we move forward with this.

A prior Industry Association I belonged to and helped charter, was sued in its third year, when we refused to let a potential member in who did not meet our membership qualifications.

We were right in our assessment based on our membership criteria. He sued over something called The Implication of Slander by Exclusion, which cost the association $20k to successfully defend. He was suing us because a couple of very large companies refuse to accept RFP responses from anyone in this particular industry who was not a member of our association.

It was ugly at best. The suit alleged that we had cost him over $1M in business already by not permitting him membership, and that cost would only go up as we continued to exclude him membership. We countered that his business clearly did not meet our membership requirements, and the fact that these other independant companies would only deal with members of our organization was not something we had forced them into - they were fully indepentant companies and could choose to deal with whomever they wished.

The Association's board almost caved and let him in anyway when we engaged our first lawyer. The lawyer said we had no real ground to stand on and we should settle - that is let him in since that was all he was asking for in his suit. One of our members was an active trial lawyer and his firm represented us "for costs" in the matter. We finally won in court, however there were a number of ugly months in the meantime, and some of us - me included - were ultimately made uncomfortable enough to leave the group.

The legal implications of denying a hosting company from membership based on ethical business practices is certainly going to raise the hackles on some of the businesses on the web. I suspect there will be legal fees involved at some point.

Not trying to dampen the spirit - just sending up a friendly warning. It's one thing to have a policy that allows you to put a HTML 3.2 logo on your site because you are 100% compliant with the spec - it's another to exclude someone membership because you do not agree with something as subjective as business ethics.

-t

Originally posted by AffordableHost
2. Answer all emailed request for help within 12 hours.If you're going to include things like that, "code of ethics" isn't really an accurate description. Slow tech support response is a "quality of service" issue; there's nothing unethical about failing to provide stellar service, as long as you don't promise more than you're delivering.

A host that promises a 24-hour response and delivers it is just as "ethical" as one that promises and delivers a response within 12 hours.

Disclaimers work wonders. Now that we know of your previous run-in....we can come up with a fitting disclaimer.

Something along the lines of "The members of HostEthics agree that the following things are needed to ensure quality service. Yadda, yadda...this is not to imply that any hosting company not offering these things are unethical....etc." :)

--Tina

Originally posted by allera
There must be "some kind" of pricing standard set. We all know that 300megs and 20 gigs of data transfer for 4.95 a month is crock. They "MAY" be able to actually support that, but the QoS will probably go way down. Customers don't know this, especially ones who have never dealt with a hosting company before.Customers don't know it, because it's not necessarily true -- as your use of "may" and "probably" make clear. It's certainly possible for a host to be offering plans at those rate and still be offering service as good as another host that offers no such low-cost plan.

Well, OK, your example is pretty extreme and that might not be sustainable (but again I have to use a qualifying "might"), but I don't see any way to set a pricing standard that would be at all workable, or fair.

And I don't think it's a good idea anyway. Really, it borders on price fixing.

Originally posted by JayC
If you're going to include things like that, "code of ethics" isn't really an accurate description. Slow tech support response is a "quality of service" issue; there's nothing unethical about failing to provide stellar service, as long as you don't promise more than you're delivering.

A host that promises a 24-hour response and delivers it is just as "ethical" as one that promises and delivers a response within 12 hours.

Very true. I was just using that as an example of how we should proceed with the list, for continuity.

How about "Clearly state a time that all tech support emails/helpdesk requests for help will be answered and adhere to that time-frame".

--Tina

Let's start with the COE, then. How about anyone who has some free time this weekend make a draft and then we can post them here for commentary.

Uptime standards are going to be a sticky wicket. In the HA (High-Availability) hosting segement of the industry, there are classifications based on the nines of uptime that a hosting provider guarantees.

90% Class I
99% Class II
99.9% Class III
99.99% Class IV
99.999% Class V
99.9999% Class VI

These are the standard uptime classifications for HA (again a voluntary set of standards with no certification or enforcement).

Conxion, who stands at the pinnacle of our industry, is a Class V HA hosting provider, they offer 100% money back guarantees for any month their FailSafe hosting falls below 99.999%. They have a very high-end infrastructure and host their FailSafe customers on clustered servers. And their prices are of the 'if you have to ask, you can't afford it' variety (I've had one of their FailSafe quotes shared with me, it was a lot of zeroes per year). They are the best restaurant in town, black tie is optional but preferred, and the silver ware isn't gold-plated, it's solid gold, as are the plates.

For most hosting providers, these sorts of uptimes are not possible-99.9% is seen by many as the highest availability acheivable. Not exactly fast food, but not quite tablecloths and linen napkins either.

Four nines or more are very difficult to achieve and maintain. It takes a lot of money and time to develop that kind of infrastructure and reliability, as well as years of data before you put your SLA out there. 24 seconds of downtime a month (5 nines) isn't much of a margin for error.

Even if it means adopting the HA system of classification, or developing a new one, there should be a scale for classifying hosts by uptime, because not every web site requires 99.999% uptime, for a personal or very small business home page, 90% or 99% may be acceptable, especially if they only want to pay a few bucks a month for it. And uptime should be one of the criteria for determining an acceptable cost for a particular hosting service, as is server space, bandwidth, various bells and whistles, and level of tech support provided. As nines are increased, the downtime decreases exponentially, and the cost for providing the service increases exponentially.

There is a big difference in overhead between a single server connected via a T1 circuit to an ISP or hosted in a server farm, and maintaining a HA hosting facility with clustered servers, carrier-grade hardware, etc. Both types of hosts are targeting different segments of the hosting market, not only different price ranges, but different types of customers.

A bargain is when you get something really good for very little money. The Boston institution (and tourist attraction) known as Filene's Basement is a place to get bargains. They carry very high-quality merchandise from very high-end stores, but it's marked way down, and sold in a rummage sale atmosphere-'I just got a bargain' is their slogan. This is not to be confused with Walmart where you can pay the same price for a shirt or a pair of jeans, but instead of getting a bargain, you are getting a cheap piece of crapola that will likely fall apart the first time you wear it.

Personally, I'd rather get a bargain on my next pair of jeans than go to Walmart and get something that's cheap. There will always be customers who prefer cheap and make their decision solely on price. Others prefer a bargain and want to get the best service for the most affordable price, and are willing to compromise a bit. Others insist on the very best and are willing to pay extra to get the most.

That's part of how stratification should work, so that customers will know that they are getting Walmart hosting that's just plain cheap or Filene's Basement hosting that is good quality but still affordable.

I dont offer a 99.9% uptime guarantee because I believe it is just as misleading the 'unlimited' bandwidth or 'unlimited' webspace issues are. There is too much involved to 'really' offer that. Yes your servers may be up 99,999999% of the time, but what about your connection? You have to rely on your NOC's uptime, whom have to rely on the are's backbone provider's uptime. If you offer that gurantee, you are lying. You cannot make that gurantee unless you have full control over the NOC you sit at as well as the local backbone. If your local backbone goes down, or your NOC's connection goes down, so does your uptime. As I said, it is misleading and is false advertising, which is why I dont offer it.

And if you say a backbone cant go down, just remember the Level3 incident in the NorthEast U.S. a while back. I know even UUNET here in Houston goes down once in a while. If you say NOCs rarely go down, you havent been watching things very well.

Hello :)

This is a good idea.

I like to point out a few things to Alera.

Originally posted by allera
There must be "some kind" of pricing standard set. We all know that 300megs and 20 gigs of data transfer for 4.95 a month is crock. They "MAY" be able to actually support that, but the QoS will probably go way down. Customers don't know this, especially ones who have never dealt with a hosting company before. They need to be protected in some way if we want the industry to regain its dignity.

Some hosts do have low prices($5, 100/300MB space) as well as great customer support and uptimes.

In fact, i personally :blush: know of a company who uses Dual data centers to host their customers and still keep the pricing below industry standards. The reason for that is b/c it is a dedication to a better internet not how much money you make.


cheers,
elijah john :)

Originally posted by Webdude
I dont offer a 99.9% uptime guarantee because I believe it is just as misleading the 'unlimited' bandwidth or 'unlimited' webspace issues are. There is a difference, though, that makes it possible to offer an uptime guarantee while it's realistically impossible to offer unlimited space. An 99.9% uptime guarantee is not saying that your uptime will be that; it's saying (for the "ethical" host) that if you don't meet that standard you'll give a refund or credit to the customer.

A host should state what the expected uptime is, state whether they guarantee that uptime, and state how they compensate customers if that guaranteed level is not met.

I'm also against price standards.
Let's start small just with the ethics. Our main goal is to show the customers for what they must look.

(this is what I put together for my ideas, based on reviewing a number of other trade organizations codes of ethics for their members-for some reason Dog Breeders have among the best codes of ethics.)

RECOGNIZING the responsibility of the web hosting profession to the people and business of our global community believing that we should encourage and foster high ethical standards in our profession, we do hereby adopt the following CODE OF ETHICS for our constant guidance and inspiration predicated upon the basic principles of truth, justice and fair play.

CODE OF ETHICS - The web hosting providers shall so act as to promote public confidence in web hosting through fair and conscientious dealing, and shall refrain from any fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, dishonest non-disclosure, undue influence or other mischievous practice. The relationship of the web host to the client is one of trust and confidence calling for the highest degree of good faith in all transactions.

Members shall show faith in the worthiness of our profession by industry, honesty, and courtesy, in order to merit a reputation for high quality of service and fair dealing.

Members shall conduct business honestly, fairly, and with integrity.

Members shall treat each customer with respect and make every effort to promote customer satisfaction.

Members agree not to discriminate on grounds of race, gender, nation of origin, religion, profession, age, mental or physical handicap, or any other reason which is not globally viewed as an illegal trait or manner of conduct.

Members shall refrain from unnecessary and unconstructive criticism of another's business, and from personal attacks upon a fellow member or his business.

Novices are encouraged to seek the advice and assistance of more experienced web hosting providers and the more experienced shall graciously assist the novice with his problems, and share for the good of the industry, the benefits of his knowledge.

Members shall bear in mind that a Code of Ethics is more than a set of rules; it is a commitment to a high standard of practice in web hosting, and that adherence to the spirit of the Code is as important as adherence to its law.

Advertising and promotion, written or oral, shall be confined to the aspects of the web hosting provider’s products and services, and shall not degrade the products and services of others.

All advertisement of web hosting products and/or services, written or oral, shall be factual and as forthrightly honest as possible in both substance and implication.

Members shall be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates of uptime or quality of service based on available data.

Members shall seek improve the understanding of the technology involved in the web hosting industry, its appropriate application, and potential consequences.

Members shall maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations.

Members shall seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technology developed by members, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others.

A web hosting provider shall be available to their clients for whatever technical support they may need for the life of the service contract, under the terms specified in the service contract, including but not to limited response time and method of response (i.e. 12 hours reply by email, 30 minutes reply by telephone, etc.).

Members will provide customers with detailed information regarding the level of service quality to be provided to them, including network and/or server uptime, technical support, customer service, guarantees/warranties, and service level agreements, and any exclusions and/or additional charges before the customer agree to the service contract.

Members will provide customers with a written service contract, in electronic and/or paper format, and will notify their clients whenever any changes are made to the service contract.

Members will specify the level of technical support to be provided in the service contract, including any exclusions and/or additional charges for support not included in the regular recurring fees for web hosting.

Advertising and promotion, written or oral, shall be confined to the aspects of the web hosting provider’s products and services, and shall not degrade the products and services of others.

All advertisement of web hosting products and/or services, written or oral, shall be factual and as forthrightly honest as possible in both substance and implication.

This one needs to be worked on. Right now it outlaws price and plan comparisons with other hosts. In a way, this could be seen as degrading the ones you are comparing with, which it really isnt. However, price and plan comparisons should be written in to be allowed so there are no questions on it.

Novices are encouraged to seek the advice and assistance of more experienced web hosting providers and the more experienced shall graciously assist the novice with his problems, and share for the good of the industry, the benefits of his knowledge.

** Excluding any trade secrets or proprietary software.

Members shall be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates of uptime or quality of service based on available data.

Perhaps some buttons issued by the organization for this? From 95% to 99.9xx. I would be more than happy to do a 95% because that takes into account possible NOC or backbone downtimes.

Also, the organization should be run as such. The people in charge should not be a host, and should be 3rd party & neutral. There should be a yearly fee and paper contract for any host to be a part of it. You might ask why.....if the Government starts getting involved, lobbying isnt cheap..

While I think that you all have noble intentions, the whole idea is stupid. Sorry for being so blunt but you all sound like a bunch of teenagers starting a secret club. As a consumer I don't and won't put much weight in organizations like this in any industry. Good hosting companies exist and know how to act. And bad hosting companies exist and are in business solely to rip people off. Your host ethics group is going to do absolutely ZERO to stop that. The only thing that is going to put an end to rip off web hosts is for the people behind those companies to be held accountable for their actions. Someone needs to take their crimes seriously and prosecute. Even this won't completely stop it but it will do a heck of a lot more than what you are proposing.



And by the way there is already an organization like this for web hosting, Web Host Guild. Seeing that a host is a member of Web Host Guild doesn't mean squat to me. The problem I see with guilds or organizations like this is that the criteria you are proposing and holding these companies to is your opinion of what is ethical and how a company should treat its customers. I will say this though, the web host guild criteria is much better than the criteria that you are proposing, but it has flaws too. You are being way too specific. For example, like someone else pointed out, having a 24 response time isn't unethical and isn't even really bad, to some people. People are very diverse, what is important to one may not be to others. For example one of the criteria Web Host Guild uses is that their members must have at least 8 hours a day of direct telephone support available. The problem with something like this is that while some people do insist on a having a host with phone support others may not care if the host does or not. I don't find it that important. Personally I would rather send an email or submit a trouble ticket than sit on hold and then finally talk to a level 1 tech making $6/hr. I agree that web hosts should give some indication of the response time that a customer should expect but for your group to dictate that is just silly.



All you are going to do is cause a lot of friction between good web hosts and consfusion to consumers. And just using Web Host Guild to make another point, two hosts that I consider pretty darn good, Pair and Futurequest, can't be a member of Web Host Guild because they don't offer phone support. That's just wrong and shows how flawed these types of things are.



Are consumers better off because of web host guild? I don't think so. Has web host guild done anything to prevent or curb the rip off hosts? Nope. How is Host Ethics going to be better or different than Web Host Guild? What is it that you think Host Ethics is going to do to make consumers better off? Why do you think slapping a host ethics logo on a web host is going to stop bad web hosts? Why should I have any faith in an award given by Host Ethics? Those are some things I would want to know, but I still wouldn't place a whole lot of faith in a host ethics award. It would not sway me to sign up for a host that had that award. And if a host didn't get a host ethics award I wouldn't be swayed against them.



What will help consumers most is for consumers to do their homework - read reviews, contact the host several times asking different questions, post to forums like this asking others what their opinions are of the host. And utimately for legal action to be taken against scam artists operating as web hosts.

No offense, but the Web Host Guild is a scam, in my opinion. What we are proposing is completely different. For one thing, I would not want to see us go in the direction that WHG has...charging to become a member.

Basically, we're proposing a set of guidelines and standards - I think general things that are good for everyone.

I do agree though, things like time-frame for support, etc. should be left off.

--Tina

This is certainly one of the more interesting topics I have seen spring up recently at WHT. Perhaps there should be a separate section for it - Hosting Ethics? (Hope the moderators are watching :))

<<MOD NOTE: We're watching :D>>

I agree with Pheonix and thewitt on most of their ideas. I would disagree with Nashoba on the fact that a non-profit/volunteer organization, say hostethics.org (someone registered that right?), would be useless. Before I found WHT, I was pretty much banging my head on the wall trying to find a good host to move my servers to. I agree that most of the web host review sites are pretty much useless. They just end up contradicting each other.

I think what we need is not a copy of a regulatory organizational structure that is the norm, but something a lot more fluid. Much the same as WHT, actually :). Let anyone interact and say what they have to, and have a few people organize and moderate the information, but not _just_ in FORUM format.

Regulating something like the Internet is going to prove futile. Hell, governments with major bucks and firepower behind them have tried for years, but no one has really succeeded. Maybe WHT itself should diversify its offerings considering it has such a loyal audience base. Instead of people setting something from complete scratch, we should look at avenues that are already helping people, such as right here.

-Ani

Like anything else, unless you get brand awareness, the best code is worthless. Take the host review sites. Pay enough and you are a top 25 host, greeeeaaatttt. A great definition of quality is worthless without advertising or an IEEE pasted before it. Plus it'd be 1 bazillion pages long - uptime is one of a ton of standards - and how is it measured - you need a standard for just it. Measured how, who audits, compensation - I can offer 100% uptime and give a snickers bar if it isn't met. A standard lacks serious validity without some universal support or cash (us hosts in this forum are far from universal!)

Speaking from the host's point of view, I would not be interested in such an organization. Too many factors are involved here to make it compelling enough. I can also see the abysmal downside to this as well: what's to stop any company from displaying any sort of tag that indicates they ascribe these "ethics" to their organization? And what can you do to police such actions when they are discovered? Anyone can claim to ethically represent their actions. As Nashoba points out, though, the true test of that is in the actions of the host, and forums like this are alive because people can (and do) take the time to post their experiences. Until people are held 100% accountable for their actions, such organizations are completely useless. Let's take True Hosting as an example. Weaselboy has morphed into experthosting/dotcomavenue. Without constant vigilance, what's to stop him from joining this little organization by claiming to adhere to whatever code it is that you come up with? It doesn't matter whether or not you charge a fee to have that stamp. It does matter how well you can keep from becoming the joke that WHG is, and I don't see it happening soon - if at all.

Originally posted by Annette
what's to stop any company from displaying any sort of tag that indicates they ascribe these "ethics" to their organization

Make them link to the page that has the members list.

--Tina

Nashoba's post shows the need for professional standards in our industry.

It also illustrates the criticism we are likely to face from those who due to their refusal to adhere to a code of ethics, will not be considered for membership, also from those who will be blacklisted due to customer complaints. There will be many angry voices raised in protest against the maturation of our industry, raised by those who have the most to lose, or those who simply don't understand that it is normal, necessary, and the only way for our industry to be something other than a disorganized angry rabble complaining about unethical companies, but not having the ability to do anything to fix the problem.

The standard organization of a trade association is a board of directors elected by the membership, although an executive director and their staff are usually hired from the outside by the board to actually run the organization itself.

But we are not at that point yet, still in the grass-roots organizing phase as a few people with a similar idea find one another and start the ball rolling. But it's been done in every industry.

Right now, there isn't a public outcry against unethical web hosts. Customers just take their lumps, flame a bit on message boards (if they know about them) and go on to the next host, and the next, the numbers are too small for getting a lawyer involved in most cases, and contacting the AG or the BBB is usually just an emptry threat. If all of them started raising a ruckus, and statistics began to be collected, I have a feeling that the numbers are pretty ugly. There are an awful lot of lawyers in this country who'd love to know about what's going on right now in our industry. Can you say class-action lawsuit?

And if that happens, the government will have no choice to step in and as we have no organized voice, they'll likely listen to the big guys in the industry (the same people who founded the Web Host Guild) and we'll likely find that we'll be facing another industry where it's impossible to compete against larger companies-such as the telco industry where the ILEC's have pretty the same monopoly they held when they were one phone company, only split up by regions, and the CLEC's can only pick up whatever crumbs fall on the floor.

Originally posted by AffordableHost


Make them link to the page that has the members list.

--Tina

And how do you plan to enforce this? Especially if you don't know they're doing it? Or are you going to go through the list of 2,000 hosts, one by one, to make sure that they aren't displaying it? What if the host feels that they are indeed ethical, but doesn't agree with the sample charter that has already been posted? This whole thing is akin to the "Top x of the Web" awards that used to be so prevalent when the web was fairly new to most people.

And just as a BTW, Phoenix, with regard to your initial remark: to my knowledge, Nashoba is not a host, or at least has not demonstrated that he/she is. As another BTW, just because some host refuses to "adhere" to some definition scraped up by a very small group of people in one corner of the Internet does NOT mean that they are unethical or should be blacklisted from anything. You want people to raise a great hue and cry about unethical hosts? Tell that to the local AGs in every state and to the appropriate regulatory agencies in other countries. That's the way unethical hosts will be forced to clean up their acts or go home. Or do you really suppose that the millions of people with web sites all came charging over to WHT or would actually go to some nascent organization with zero clout before they signed up? If they did, then places like True Hosting wouldn't have been able to fleece as many people as they did.

I think it would be nice for hosts to post a page on security, specifically HOW to set up passwords, files, etc. specific to the equipment the host uses to prevent or minimize the risk of being hacked.

Also include posting notices of security warnings, patches, and updates so all of their clients would know to update their accounts.

This would help protect everyone with sites on their servers, and would indicate a desire to provide good service to their customers.

Andy

Personally, some of my criticisms are lessened by the proposed text posted by Phoenix, because it is much less specific than some of the earlier discussion.

That said, I'd still have serious doubts that anything very productive could be achieved.

A few "hard questions:"

Publicity and marketing: here are a few dozen hosts out of tens of thousands that make up the industry. How do you become a significant entity? Web Hosting Guild (which I agree is less about looking out for hosting customers and more about being a marketing tool for the members) has been around for years, and yet few hosting clients have heard of them. How do you become more well known?

Ethics: Honestly, much of what's written here sounds like an insular group trying to paint a picture that the outsiders are "bad." Pretty much like WHT sometimes seems: hosts are recommended simply because they have a presence here; those that do not are suspect. Is the real mission to promote ethics and look out for the consumer, or is it to advance ideas like "if you're selling plans priced well below what we can, obviously you aren't giving good customer supprt." How do you guard against people with that agenda taking influential roles?

Impartiality: Webdude suggested that the people running the organization shouldn't be hosts themselves. I don't think that's necessarily a requirement (most trade associations are run by insiders) but ideally you'd at least have an outside executive director. Perhaps a "membership committee" made up of both customers and hosts. How do you police that? How do you know who and isn't impartial? Even customers have existing loyalties; some might cover up their direct connections to a host.

Liability: Say one of your insiders says something in a public forum that reflects negatively on a company (fact it, it happens all the time). Now the company in question applies for membership, and is denied... remember the lawsuit story? How do you know that decisions are being made on the merits; more importantly, how do you prove it?

Money: I'm sure it'd be easy to find somebody to host the site, and to find hosts to act as representatives of the organization, to vote on membership, etc. But if you don't want to charge a fee for membership, who's underwriting the routine expenses? How do you maintain the perception that the person or people footing the bills is facing the same scrutiny as everyone else? After all, how often does someone in these forums imply that or question whether the company hosting the forums isn't recommended just because of that?


Really, I think the basic idea is OK, and I think for the most part the involved parties are doing this for the right reasons. I also think, though, that it might be being taken too casually. Maybe it can be done right, but it'd be much easier for it to become ineffective at best, or harmful at worse.

Excellent thoughts, Jay. I have one other thought to add to this, from the consumer's POV.

Say that a consumer does stumble across the site, reviews the members, and selects a host based on that. Who is to be held accountable if something dire happens, and the host does not live up to their claim to uphold these "ethics"? That consumer will waste no time getting to the nearest forum and telling everyone not only that they had a horrible experience but that the whole list is a crock, because of the tacit endorsement by whatever the organization is calling itself of every host on that list. Disclaimers will not save any of that, either, and given the pack-like nature of this forum and others, hosts who are part of that list who then turn around and start biting at the consumer for having the audacity to post such a complaint will reflect even more badly on the whole idea, confirming the consumer's complaint right then and there for anyone who might be lurking.

As I pointed out to someone else here quite some time ago, you do not show people that you are great (or ethical) by telling them you are, over and over. You show them greatness (or display your ethics) by your actions, and that alone.

Between Nashoba and Annette, most of what I was thinking has been said. While the goals of this proposed organization sound noble and lofty enough, they lack practicality. There are examples drawn from similar proposals that illustrate this.

One is the already mentioned HTML Writers Guild. Another is an organization and seal designed to inspire confidence in how information on site would be used. The seal was meant to show that sites that displayed it could be trusted and honored the privacy of its visitors.

In real life, some of those sites used the information as they chose, in flagrant viloation of the aims of the seal. Even the thteat of lawyers did not deter some from displaying the seal on their sites. They refused to take it down.

As thewitt points out, law suits could eventually result. Even when they are successfully defended, they can be expensive. What s/he described is very much what has happened with MAPS on the occasions they have been sued (except that the lawsuits were subsequently dropped).

I applaud your sentiments. I just don't give much hope for anything meaningful to come of all this.

talk is cheap.

But this idea isn't bad though, if you look at the big picture. Let someone register a site (hostethics.org sounds good) and host it. (I canna, 'cause my primary biz is not hosting, but I will be willing to put my design skills into it as a volunteer).

BTW, I don't think ENFORCEMENT is the solution or the point here. I think AWARENESS is just as important, if not more. And I think people who come here looking for web hosts go away happier than any other site on the net.

WHT has helped me a lot, though I am not a newbie to the Internet thing :) (even though you see that under my signin. sigh...). We need more of these kinda freeXchanges, albeit in more depth.

As I have said before, WHT should expand from just a FORUM to offering tutorials/help/advice/user reviews/KnowledgeBases on web hosting etc..

Web Hosting is still such a fragmented industry. We should take advantage of that fact and try to mold it into a user/consumer phenom than let a big corporate guppy come and gobble it all up all.

Personally it doesnt matter so much that it is to maintain the integrity of members, or protects consumers. It should be there to protect the hosting industry.

Let's look at the trucking industry. There are agencies that want to make truckers drive only at night, and others that want to keep them off the road. Count up how many things in your home that wasnt on a truck at one time and you get the idea of how crazy that is. Trucking pays 80% of all road taxes, yet the trucking industry was getting their butts kicked in Congress because they had no unified voice. The anti-truckers did.

Now you have the American Trucking Association which most trucking companies on the road are a member of, and pay fees to. Now the trucking industry has an extremely powerful voice because they can afford heavy lobbying campaigns.

What happens when some politician gets a hair up his *** and decides hosts should be liable for anything and everything that goes wrong? Do we have a voice right now that can fight that? Do we even have anyone in Washington monitoring every bill that gets proposed? If there was a yearly fee, I would be interested. If it is free, forget it. No Money = No Power = No Voice, which means it would be a totally useless organization.

Look at all those that have a voice in Congress....ATA, Rifle Association, Gays, Blacks, Women, Computer Manufacturers, Software Makers, Senior Citizens, Tobacco, even other governments. Dang near everyone except poor single white men and the hosting industry.

The fact is, we need something there to allow the hosting industry to police it's own industry, and keep the Government(s) out of it. Well, keep politicians in general out of our business..

Well, there's really no way to have it both ways. Either it's enforceable (i.e., you can't display some tag on your site unless you agree) or it isn't (i.e., anybody who wants to can slap a tag on their site, whether they agree or not, and therefore such a tag means nothing). Forums like this, and, more specifically, SitePoint (at http://www.sitepointforums.com which has a greater wealth of material for newbies) are exactly for the purpose of information exchange between people who happen to find their way to them. Judging by Phoenix' long post, it sure looks like regulation and insularity is the way he sees it heading eventually (i.e., us v. them, perople who agree v. "bad" hosts who don't agree). Plus, anyone who thinks hosting companies, as opposed to backbone providers (RBOCs, CLECs, and the big dogs like Sprint, AOL et al) have any clout at all in DC are deluding themselves.

WD: you have just changed the whole thrust of the posts made by Phoenix and Tina. The hosting industry is policed by its own and by its clientele, through forums like this, newsgroups, bad press in the regular media, and so on. What's to "protect" about the hosting industry itself? Not a thing. If regulatory agencies would devote the time necessary to take care of egregious offenders like Galaxy-Web, or takes steps as WA State has against ResellerMatrix, the world would be a better place. The problem is that they don't have the resources to address a single $12 claim against a single host. And I have to say that your "poor single white men" claim just blows any credibility you have right out of the water for me.

Annette is right, the hosting industry (ahem, like any industry :) is governed by the consumer's likes/dislikes.

There are thousands of webhosts out there. What makes some better others. Its not JUST service. For most newbies (which I think is the big chuck of the market) is their perception of the host - their marketing, their site interface, and brand recognition. Then the consumers make decisions like prices, OS, options, blah blah.

But I don't see anything wrong with expanding or starting a webhost specific (for both the seller and buyer) service that will try to be almost completely unbaised.

But that requires people who do not have vested interests in the "site." And that itself requires a great committment from such people. As I said, I am willing to offer design services for free ('cause it irks me no end to see bad sites with good content). Who else is willing to spend time and effort, and money on this venture, eh?

Like I said, talk is cheap. If someone wants to do this for real, lets talk reality.
;)

I well remember the HTML Writer's guild, you didn't have to have anything but a URL to give them in order to be a member, and the only indication of membership was just a graphic on a site, easily pasted in by any web site owner. They kept no centralized registry of their members, nor did they have any real criteria for joining. The Webmasters Guild was a little harder to join and required a membership fee, and the AIP just required a check to be sent. i supported all of them, but that industry is not even close to maturing.

I don't see people in an an industry organizing for the greater good of an industry to be a particularly noble and lofty cause, I see it as more a fight for survival-not a quest for the Grail. Not everyone agrees with me, but I have put rather a lot of research and analysis into this over the past year, and my suggestions are not made lightly.

Nothing happens overnight, going from a handful of hosts with an idea for promoting ethical hosting to an influential and powerful trade organization will take years, and the concerted efforts of many people. It will be a tremendous undertaking for those involved. But it's been done before, many times. And I'm sure every one of them was told their ideas were impractical.

But that's how all things start, many years ago, not far from where I sit typing this, a small group of people who were tired of not having a voice got together and decided that they could do something about it for the good of their fellow countrymen. They managed to win a war against one of the most powerful nations of that era, and founded a country.

With one of the most powerful communications tools at our disposal, a network that connects all of us to one another, shouldn't we be able to work together, to create something that will eventually help all of us?

I was raised to believe that you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. I'd rather be part of the solution.

Originally posted by Webdude
Now you have the American Trucking Association which most trucking companies on the road are a member of, and pay fees to. Now the trucking industry has an extremely powerful voice because they can afford heavy lobbying campaigns.Whether there's a need for that -- an advocacy-oriented lobby organization -- is a different debate. But such an entity would have little in common with the kind of organization we've been talking about here. For one thing, you'd have to really be a lover of irony to put the word "ethics" into the name of a lobby group.

ok then Pheonix,

You wanna be part of the solution, then get the domain. you seem to be affiliated to a web host company, so host the site, setup a board to start with, and I am willing to volunteer with design services.

vB is expensive, but you can get YABB for free, and almost good enough. So lets start with that then.

you wanna? I am game.

Hi all,

This is a burning list. I left it last night with six posts and today I can see a whole lot of writing !

Anyways, in my opinion, we should not force a lot of restrictions and shape into this concept. Just as all concepts on the net, it should be given a free space to expand, take its shape and stabilize.

What I would suggest is a couple of things which can be done to begin with.

- We draft a code of ethics and post it on a website. Any host who want to adhere to it may download it and go through it and follow it. No brute force compuulsion for anybody to follow it.

- We put up a site with information to educate customers and new comers to this industry about various aspects including what to expect, what not to expect, what can be an indicative price (nobody should be forced to follow the price. i think it is illegal in usa. may be not in india)

- We open up a mentoring section with few experienced volunteers who help the new upcoming hosting companies, resellers etc to adopt to the industry well and practise the right principles from day 1 :)

I think if this organisation can just do this much to begin with, it will be a huge work.

Of course all of us can link to this website for our own interest. Remember it will educate your customers also as what to expect and what to not. So you might not get a customer calling up for setting up Outlook Express with a angry red eye and shout at you for lack of support. In fact he will prasie you if you help him out with this. Just my thoughts.

If we go for regulating too much in the begining many people may just not like it and go against it. LEt a common idea build up. Let it be free. The more open the concept will be, the more people will adopt it.

What do you all guys say ?

Abhishek
(talash)

I have an idea. Instead of having a logo or something to put on your page, how about a requirement be that there is a 'total discloser page.' This page would be required for membership and would simply show exactly what you get with the different hosting plans with no little *s with a 2 pt. explanation on the bottom of the screen. Have everything written out plainly and not hidden!! I think this would do the most good.

Examples of what should be on total discloser page:
-How much bandwidth (actual)
-Servers
-All packages/software on servers
-All hosting limitations (no adult, copyright stuff........)
-Support Policy (phone, email, ticket........)
-Up to date server up time and record of uptime for previous months

etc, etc.........

As a buyer and not a hoster, I would find this much more helpful then a little logo, plus I think it is more of what you are trying to achieve!! :)

For the beginning keep it simple as Abhishek said. The main point should be to educate customers and to have a few common standards.

Now a few comments :)

nashoba:
The only thing that is going to put an end to rip off web hosts is for the people behind those companies to be held accountable for their actions
So you really think that the pure existance of police will prevent any crime?

Chris Marks:
Like anything else, unless you get brand awareness, the best code is worthless
We surely will have to do some marketing. For the start it will be enough to do this on WHT and on the websites of the hosts.

Jay:
it to advance ideas like "if you're selling plans priced well below what we can, obviously you aren't giving good customer support"
I think there should be no effort into prices - if a host want's to sell the GB bandwidth for 10cent, let him try.

Phoenix:
shouldn't we be able to work together, to create something that will eventually help all of us?
Yes! And applause for the rest of your posting! So I wanna quote once more:

But it's been done before, many times. And I'm sure every one of them was told their ideas were impractical.

Hi guys,

I repeat again : keep it simple :)
If you are gonna make it too complex, its never gonna start. Let us not force anything on anybody. Lets not be the deciding body or a jury. Lets not interfere with any business.

We should be plainly providing some useful information to the customers, new entrants into the business and people in general about the business.

We should just list down, as how an ideal hosting company should work. Agreements, ToS, AUP and even contracts (with general help from all guys out here). It is upto the guys to adhere to it. If they dont want to stick to it today, let them not. They will come back when the realise the importance.

I am totally against enforcement. Let it be a natural process. Think, if I tell you to prepare a set of 100 page document for your hosting account, you might not really feel like doing it. But if you feel yourself the importance, you will do it better than anybody else.

I hope i make sense :)

Abhishek
(talash)

And I have to say that your "poor single white men" claim just blows any credibility you have right out of the water for me.

Well my wife said I would get a rise out of any women from that one. Ok, so take it too serious. Your choice. I only said that because I had noted that back when I was a single poor white man, everyone had their rights movements and lobbyists except me.

Annette is right, the hosting industry (ahem, like any industry) is governed by the consumer's likes/dislikes.

That depends on consumer knowledge. Most people I meet cant stand Microsoft, AOL, or places even like *****. The fact of the matter is people are using them, and they are growing. Maybe this is because even if they know there are other choices, they dont know how to find them. AOL grew tremendous with the negative advetising it got. Now no matter where I go I see AOL! AOL! AOL!. I cant even eat pizza without seeing their ad on my table....geez. (sorry, ranted there for a moment, just wish they would run out of ad money..heh)

I agree with talash that people should be educated on the issues. All too often people get cheated from one company, and think most other companies in that industry are basically the same. They get ripped once, and for good reason, are afraid they will get ripped again. I dont think it's so much a matter of ethics per se, but a matter of identifying those hosts that respect their customers verses the ones that dont. A few bad apples...etc.

Dogma, your post about listing "-All packages/software on servers " would be difficult to put on one page. Just the modules for Apache alone would be too much, much less all the other programs and their modules. Although a host should at maintain the most widely used modules anyway and keep them updated.

Quoted by Jay
"if you're selling plans priced well below what we can, obviously you aren't giving good customer support"

Look at my sig. Is that what you are talking about? If so, we have 25,000+ clients. Many of our clients come from other hosts simply because of the outstanding support we provide....and we have never once advertised. It's actually to our benifit that other hosts continue to screw up. However, I am all for the idea presented here if it can be done correctly.

And yes this all has been tried many times before, but at some point it will succeed. As technology and resources increase, the ability to make it happen will come available. I would like to see an organization that not only promote consumer awareness, but provides a voice for member hosts. Let me explain why. Let's say someone uploads cracked Adobe software to your server and Adobe decides to start cracking down on people like this. The only thing protecting you as a host from their full onslaught is the DMCA. It isnt happening now, so you feel there is no need for a voice. However, if an organization like this isnt started, then when some politician decides the DMCA gives us too much protection, we're all going to be standing alone as individual companies with no unified voice. That means the software companies will win in Congress. I'd hate to see a law coming out that can fine a host for every piece of cracked software on it......although it was the host's client that did it and the host didnt know about it. Those are the kinds of laws the software industry would like to see. Of course if that happend, you'd be so busy searching for illegal software on your servers, you'd have no time for customer support.

I know this isnt needed now, but is there a reason for waiting till it's too late? I dont think it's too much to ask that if this is going to be done to provide ethical recomendations, consumer awareness, and customer education, to also be a central voice for the hosting industry.

WD, I'm not taking it too seriously at all. But I don't really care about your personal politics, and it has zero to do with the general direction of this thread. So either you really believe it, or you just tossed it in there to see what sort of reaction you would get. If the former, fine, since everyone is entitled to their opinion. If the latter, then it's a waste of time and only an attempt to stir the pot - unproductive. It's that to which I object.

The rest of this - have fun. Just because it has been tried before and not been successful does not mean that it should succeed at some point. Some ideas are simply impractical and offer no worth to the very people that are supposed to be protected by it. If it's for hosts, why bother? It's not like hosts don't look after themselves, rapidly identifying bad eggs. If it's for consumers, then it really is worthless if there is no bite to the credibility of such an organization. Offering up some code that hosts voluntarily put on their site (or link to) gives tacit approval to any host out there that does it, if there is no vetting of those hosts. Would you like to be the one to explain to someone why GX Hosting, say, linked to that document and then ripped off someone of their hard earned money? And given that same scenario (the voluntary bit), exactly how do you propose to get someone to stop linking to such a document if whoever the powers that be are decide that host just isn't ethical, darn it. Further, what about the personal politics that inevitably arise. You can see that right here on this forum, and it isn't pretty. It would be worse were there some "official" sounding group that engaged in such pettiness. It would also not serve any purpose than to make some hosts who care to participate feel better about themselves, since they are the same people who delight in stomping other hosts right here. If there is some sort of vetting to be done, then who does it? Other hosts? No thank you. Who decides the finality of such "codes"? A select group of hosts? No thank you.

If you offer quality service, treat your customers right, and hold yourself prudently in public forums, people will notice. If you offer terrible service, steal from your own clients using fraudulent charges, and generally act like an ass in public, they will also know. While the latter is more often heard from people who visit forums, that's true of anything: bad news goes farther and wider than good news, and always has. Human nature is to share the tragedy of an individual experience more often than the triumph. However, there is always that sneaking in of praise for those who deserve it in the midst of the whirlwinds of criticism. That is what makes such praise special, not the linking to some "code", which anyone can do.

Annette:
If you offer terrible service, steal from your own clients using fraudulent charges, and generally act like an ass in public, they will also know

Due to the nature of the Net it is relatively simple for someone to open a service, rip some customers off, shut it down, reopen it under a different name and so on - for quite a long time if the damage he does is in the region 20-100$. Have you followed the thread about tac...ost?

I have been reading along since the very first post. My first impression was, "this sounds like a good idea." As days went by I continued reading and not posting any comments yet. My second impression was, "this is a way for the bigger companys to stay big." I continued reading and today my impression is, "your ruining what started out as a good idea." Read this thread from the first post again, after the first page it just goes down hill. If we were to take a vote, I am in favor of the original idea.

What I was trying to say is basically a host should disclose exactly how much bandwidth you get, what main programs or on the server (PHP, mySQL, etc.), server uptime, any problems w/ servers, and all the other stuff and not have it hidden in the TOS or at the bottom of the page.

I think that HostEthics membership should be based on this disclosure, because the disclosure will help consumers make better informed decisions. Because thats really what I think people are aiming to do!! :wavey:

Sesran, don't be too much dissapointed. As expected not everyone finds this idea very good. Many hosts and customers have read this thread, some even contributed.
If nothing more would happen at least this had shown that there are hosts who care about the customer. Naturally :) I would be happy if more comes out.

The only thing I am wondering: if you take the replies/views numbers and compare this thread (host quality: 58/786) with the thread " Unlimihost.com - a 15-year-old running the company" (93/1877) THEN you have to be disapointed. Are hosts AND customers really more interested in bashing young business people than in quality?
Just wondering...

Yes, Walter, I have. I've even followed true hosting/experthosting/dotcomavenue more closely than that. So? It doesn't change anything. Most people do not come to this forum (or any other) to gather impressions about a potential host. Why would they seek out some obscure site that proposes a set of ethics? Especially given that there is no authoritative body (and never will be), there is no guarantee that sites listed there will treat their clients fairly (or ethically, if you prefer), and that it reeks of the inclusionary type of activity that hangs over the "top x host" sites as it is - even as initially proposed.

And are you equating those of us who disagree with this whole notion as uncaring about the customer? If anything, those of us who have disagreed thus far have shown more concern for customers than those who would blithely think this solves 99% - or even 50% or 1% - of the problems inherent in the hosting industry, because at least we can show that there is no particular reason for such a site to offer any more protection to consumers than already exists, however little that might be. You, along with some other people, appear to think that this forum, or some site like the one proposed, will suddenly magically be this giant mystical place where everyone who wants a web site will go to verify a host they are about to choose. I have news for you: this forum is but a mote on the Internet. Any site like the one proposed would likely be just as insignificant, and if it did grow larger, would be dominated by the larger companies.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with any "age bashing" activity that might go on in this forum. Don't try to make this analogous to anything other than what it is: an attempt to form some sort of organization that has no teeth, can't enforce anything, and seems to be a really great idea to maybe half a dozen people. It's fraught with peril, both for the reputation of whatever organization might come from it, the reputations of any host that would be associated with it ("Oh, yeah, that host is on some "ethics" list, along with GX Hosting" or "That host displays the same "ethics" logo as Tacidhost" - wouldn't that look swell), the legal issues that might arise should anyone decide to take the organization to task for the actions of one host on the list, since the organization is supposedly vetting and approving the list and should therefore be responsible for the content of that list, and the consumer for being led to believe that such as organization has the power to stamp "approved" on other hosts when it is being spearheaded and led by the hosts themselves. These objections of mine are but a mere fringe of the totality. Most of my objections revolve around the protection of those very customers that you seem to presume are uncared for.

Originally posted by Walter
if you take the replies/views numbers and compare this thread (host quality: 58/786) with the thread " Unlimihost.com - a 15-year-old running the company" (93/1877) THEN you have to be disapointed. Are hosts AND customers really more interested in bashing young business people than in quality?That's just silly. For one thing, this thread started on May 11; that one on May 2. So if you're convinced there's some valuable meaning in how many people have viewed and posted to each thread -- a point of view that' d be hard to defend, I think -- this one is well ahead in posts and views per day.If nothing more would happen at least this had shown that there are hosts who care about the customer. Or there are hosts who care about themselves. However noble the goal of the original idea was and is, much of the discussion by hosts here and in the "shared hosting prices" thread where this began has focused on how to protect the hosting industry in general and on how to defend higher prices by equating them with high quality while associating lower prices with lower quality service.

I'm sure there are some here with loftier goals. Perhaps if this group is serious a good place to start would be to write a mission statement for this organization. If you can't put the goals into a single clear statement there's still a lot of discussion to go through. That number of views/number of posts count is just getting started.

Originally posted by Webdude

Quoted by Jay

"if you're selling plans priced well below what we can, obviously you aren't giving good customer support"
Look at my sig. Is that what you are talking about?
Huh? Please tell me how you read into that -- go back and read my post to put it in context, and note that I included it in quotation marks -- an attack on low cost hosts? If you read the beginning of this thread you'll see what I'm referring to.

No, it wasn't referring to you. I don't even read the ads... er, the sigs in this forum.

Annette:
If anything, those of us who have disagreed thus far have shown more concern for customers than those who would blithely think this solves 99% - or even 50% or 1% - of the problems inherent in the hosting industry
Do you really think we are that naive? :bawling:

Annette:
attempt to form some sort of organization that has no teeth, can't enforce anything, and seems to be a really great idea to maybe half a dozen people
Everything has to start small - or did your hosting service start large? :)

Annette:
the reputations of any host that would be associated with it ("Oh, yeah, that host is on some "ethics" list, along with GX Hosting" or "That host displays the same "ethics" logo as Tacidhost" - wouldn't that look swell)
If everyone would think like you there would be no bible, no laws, no.... Everything can be used for good and bad.

JayC:
Or there are hosts who care about themselves. However noble the goal of the original idea was and is, much of the discussion by hosts here and in the "shared hosting prices" thread where this began has focused on how to protect the hosting industry in general and on how to defend higher prices by equating them with high quality while associating lower prices with lower quality service

To answer this I must quote myself from the beginning of the thread. I still think ONE major thought is about customer care:

1. Register domain in customers' name.
2. Answer all emailed request for help within 12 hours.
3. Make cancellation of an account not unnecessary uneasy (??? and do not ask for a transfer fee)
4. Do not advertise things that you can't deliver (as unlimited bandwidth)
5. Provide support documents on the website
6. Uptime???
7. Prohibiting SPAM

Originally posted by Walter
To answer this I must quote myself from the beginning of the thread. That's exactly my point. At the beginning of the thread, it seemed like a good idea. As the discussion has gone on, it's become something else and it's become clear that the participants wouldn't all have the same goals for the proposed organization.

To be clear, I don't think that your idea as initially posted is a bad one. My objections all came as the thread developed and specific agendas were laid out. But my post about the many kinds of things to go wrong wasn't meant as an argument against doing it; it was argument for doing it without blinders on. Webdude's heart-stirringly patriotic post about how big ideas start with a small group of people is true enough, but every one of those groups that is successful has people alongside challenging those ideas and making sure they're thought through carefully. Perhaps one wins friends by standing alongside cheering "yeah, great idea!" but a group is more effective with someone saying "maybe it's a good idea, but..."

I do think it'd be a lot of work to make anything sustainable and worthwhile of this idea.

If it were me, my next step would be to write a short mission statement and look for a few people who agree with it. I'd recruit maybe four people as a committee to draft a more detailed statement. I wouldn't open up the process too widely until a basic framework had already been worked out -- otherwise you have too many people trying to pull in too many directions.

A variation on that approach: take a roster of everyone who is interested. Take nominations from that group and let everyone vote to elect four people to that development committee. Then the entire group -- which may have grown by the time you get to this point -- can vote on accepting the document.

That can all wait for as long as you want to continue to take ideas from the "public." But at some point someone or some group of people has to be empowered to make decisions, and the longer it takes to do that the longer it is before you begin to go in only one direction.

Originally posted by Walter
Sesran, don't be too much dissapointed. As expected not everyone finds this idea very good.
I am not disappointed, just hopeing this good idea doesn't turn into crap.

Originally posted by Walter
If nothing more would happen at least this had shown that there are hosts who care about the customer.
I would seriously hope that at least 90% of the hosts cared about their customers.

Originally posted by Walter
Are hosts AND customers really more interested in bashing young business people
Now I am not young, but that really bothers me when people bash other people for reasons of age, sex, race, etc.. I do not believe any of that should matter.

I think the only issue here is to set a standard. A standard that everyone can live with. We all know that hosts who offer top notch for little money will end up out of business. We also know that hosts who offer nothing for top dollar will end up out of business too. There has to be a middle and hopefully we all find that middle through experience. Also, I live in Connecticut USA, my cost of living is higher than others, but we are dealing with a worldwide business. This makes things harder to turn a profit when $1 is worth more to some than others.

The time for rhetoric has passed, before registering domains and setting up a site, let's get the committee together and decide on an initial plan of action. A mission statement is the best place to begin. We all bring a variety of different ideas and viewpoints to the table, so first we need to figure out what the common ones are.

We'll need a name, too.

The bulletin board idea is a great idea once we get past the initial organizing stage and set some goals,objectives, etc. Then the call can go out for volunteers to moderate it.

Because I was one of the initial proponents of this undertaking, and because I believe in it strongly, I'll volunteerr to take the point until a committee can be gathered and we can vote on a chair, unless someone else wants to volunteer for the 'get the ball rolling phase'.

If you want to be part of the committee, drop me an email at phoenix@xensei.com. Time to stand up and be counted.

Walter said:

Annette:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the reputations of any host that would be associated with it ("Oh, yeah, that host is on some "ethics" list, along with GX Hosting" or "That host displays the same "ethics" logo as Tacidhost" - wouldn't that look swell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If everyone would think like you there would be no bible, no laws, no.... Everything can be used for good and bad.



Sigh. Can no one spare us the rhetoric or bad analogies for one second? You are missing the point once again.


Walter:
Annette:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
attempt to form some sort of organization that has no teeth, can't enforce anything, and seems to be a really great idea to maybe half a dozen people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everything has to start small - or did your hosting service start large?

Non-sequitor. Your comment has nothing to do with the general thrust of my statement, which stands, and your comment does not address the main issue at all. An organization like the one propsed has no standing to enforce anything, period. Thus, if the goal is to protect the consumer in some manner, it has already failed. If the goal is to protect those in the hosting industry itself, which seems to be more the case based on some of the commentary, it has not only failed already but is unnecessary and a bit insulting, personally. The consumer needs protection from the host more than the host needs protection from the consumer, within the bounds of this topic. It does not matter whether six or six hundred people are interested - although it sure looks like it might be six or fewer that are.

Since I'm not into this three strikes and you're out thing, and since Phoenix is charging right in with committees and mission statements and whatnot, have fun. The first time either some customer has a problem with anyone who might be listed on such a site and/or the first time a host complains that whatever gate guard is in place doesn't let them on the list and/or the first time you find you can't force a host to remove any indication that they subscribe to whatever "ethics" this small (dare I say clique-ish, just like every forum out there, particularly this one?) group comes up with and/or the first time someone suggests that whatever "standard" is not a suitable one or wants to make changes and it turns into a giant squabble, you'll understand exactly what I mean. The idea is not bad. But I can see it rolling right into the toilet based on the items that have cropped up in this very thread, mostly because it will be a very small group of people that have no real idea of or want to look at the problems inherent in doing it - and because having other hosts be the top dogs of such a group leaves a lot of room for personal politics and general nastiness.

Well I dont know where "host needing protection from consumers" came in, but I am certainly interested in having a voice for the industry in Congress. Every industry has their own watchdogs up there. Where's ours?

I dont think the size of any given host has anything to do with it. All hosts here are still fairly small. What counts is how many companies a group represents.

You cant force ethics on other hosts. I treat my customers well and provide good support, and I am sure most legit hosts do. All you can really do is issue recomended guidelines for hosts to follow, and hope for the best. For one, I wouldnt mind seeing a recommended TOS issued. One that is professional and legally creditable. One that is free for any host to use, and they can add in their own special clauses.

I personally believe there should be membership fees for an organization like this....otherwise someone has to cover the costs. I dont think it could survive on donations. There should be a BBB type system for our industry, but you cant do it for free.

As for me protecting my own interest, that some have critized, everyone does it. Dont try to make me look bad by voicing that. What protects me, protects my clients as well, which is my end concern.

I am 30 years old and have seen what damage politicians do to industries they dont understand. I dont need extra laws placed on me because a few other hosts screwed people over, those people form their own groups, and cry to the Government for legislation. Suddenly, we all get punished for the actions of the few bad apples. Currently we are in an industry with little to no Government involvement. Wouldnt it be nice if it stayed that way?

Annette, I don't want to quote anymore :)
My main concern was not to form an organization who let some hosts in and some not - I clearly stated that I think the first step would be to set up a site with some common guidelines to "educate" the customer and to help him to understand, for instance, that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, and so on. I proposed already 7 points to begin with, there are many other points and I hope this will grow.
Sigh, too. Period.

After reading through the thread it seems all you guys want to do is make another BBB.

Originally posted by Walter
I clearly stated that I think the first step would be to set up a site with some common guidelines to "educate" the customer and to help him to understand, for instance, that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, and so on. That's a big part of the problem here. You want to set up an informational resource for webhosting consumers (something, of course, that's already readily available). Some people want to "enforce" through membership guidelines a group's idea of what's "ethical." Some want an advocacy group that will protect webhosts by lobbying in Congress.

This discussion can't go anywhere until everyone is talking about the same thing.

JayC, good point. Ok, the list:
1a. Educate and guide customers.
1b. Set Standards for hosting.
2. Membership
3. Lobbying.

Regarding 1a: Where can you find this information concentrated and in a language a normal computer user can understand? My link database is big but the Net is much bigger LOL. Show me.
Maybe this can be done step by step. And not everyone wants to take part in step 3 or even step 2.

I happened upon this site while searching for a webhost, and I'm glad I did.

I read a few threads from beginning to end, including this one. This is my first and probably last post to this board since once I find a host I won't really need to look here anymore.

This topic caught my interest, and it looks like your board encourages outsiders to participate, so I'll jump in and share my opinions on this topic.

Here are my opinions as a webhost customer and as someone with some experience with a national trade group.

1) An ethics only organization will likely fail. Most Codes Of Ethics comes from a trade or professional group that publish a Code of Ethics as just a part of what they do. To most effectively implement a COE you should form a trade group which will represent the interests of the industry. Once that trade group is established then it can create a COE and have some legitimacy for establishing it. Of course it can and should also do lobbying, and perhaps conflict arbitration, etc.

2) It is very naive to overlook the role of politics in any organization such as this. In any trade group there are "innies" and "outies". Most trade and professional organizations are run by a clique of people who are dedicated, but who also benefit by being at the center and getting to help decide issues in the favor of their friends and associates.

3) To think that this or an Ethics only organization could be run without some type of dues represents a failure to visualize the process through to its conclusion. As was pointed out above, this organization must do some type of marketing, have websites, have a telephone, etc.

4) The industry must self-regulate or it will be more heavily regulated from outside. As it is, many of the things that webhosts do that people complain about on these boards are illegal and eventually the legal system will catch up with technology and some of those abuses will end. Lots more things might be unethical in some sense but not so clear cut as you might at first think. Personally, I agree with the person who suggested full disclosure. Be careful to not fall into the trap of thinking that just because someone gives a lower quality of service than you do that they are unethical.

5) Don't overlook the caveat emptor aspect of things. There will always be people willing to take advantage of a fool. On these boards I've seen people whine when they didn't get all their unlimited bandwidth for $9.99 a month. This group can and should do consumer education. Further, an individual could even do that should this group fail.

6) You should expect that this organization will initially be viewed with some suspicion by those who were not involved in its formation. See number 2 above for the reasons. I think the proposal to form a committee is a good one. It is impossible to carry this to far with too many voices in the formation stage.

7) You can make this come about with a true willingness to make it happen, and a significant effort. Without that then this is just so much noise from a passing breeze. I don't know any of you personally, but I doubt that most of you would be willing to put forth (or even realize) the effort that this would take. But it only takes a few people who are willing to dedicate themselves to it to make this a success.

8) I wish everyone the best of luck in making something happen here.

frank watts

Hmm, very well done. Part of that is what I have been attempting to explain but wasnt succeeding.

You also said "but I doubt that most of you would be willing to put forth (or even realize) the effort that this would take."

I know how much work is actually required and the dedication it takes. I am uninterested in doing that, I did not start the idea. However, if a decent organization was started and it look promising. I have no problem being a paying member.

One thing that we could do at the grass-roots level before the government steps in and starts regulating us is develop a set of ethical and service standards, and pricing guidelines for our industry, and as many of as want to promote good quality hosting agree to them. Publish them somewhere online, with a list of the signatories-to show that these companies have committed themselves to more than just cheap hosting and disappointing customers
And now the work has begun:
If you want to be part of the committee, drop me an email at phoenix@xensei.com. Time to stand up and be counted.

I definitely understand where you guys are coming from with your enthusiasm to organize this set of standards. But, unfortunately, I don't think it would help much.

Let's face some reality here:

The big hosts will probably never join this thing. *****, for all that I've heard of it, would still be able to attract new customers and jerk them around, regardless of the ethics code. And even the good ones would probably see little benefit of being bound to a charter of ethics that they didn't write; they have their own standard of ethics and reputation to base their business upon.

The little hosts may benefit -- but only if the reputation of this particular set of ethics becomes well-established as credible. To make this set of ethics universally well-respected and well-known, you would have to hire people full-time to promote the organization, to hear complaints, to enforce violations of the code, and to report the status of membership to the public. However, to do so would require substantial membership dues -- which might preclude some small hosts from affording to join.

The medium-sized hosts may benefit, provided the above is executed well. However, do not underestimate the difficulties of establishing credibility. Just as the reason for this code of ethics is to separate the wheat from the chaff, it's a lot easier to masquerade as wheat on the net. Anyone with webspace and a pirated copy of Photoshop can make their disreputable business appear legit -- code of ethics or not.

That strikes curiosity point in me. What are the numbers for small, medium, and large host? For example:

Client wise:
0-XX = Small host
xx-xxxxx = Medium Host
xxxxx - xxxxxxxx? = Large host

And in each category, who are some of the better known ones? Like I know Exodus is a large host. Would ***** be large or medium?

I know it's sort of off topic, but since it was brought up, that question popped into my head.

I agree with bigmattyh

And as for *****, although there are many people who dislike/hate *****, I think it's because of their large customer base. Since a host can not please all customers, more and more will dislike ***** but more people will be *****'s customer as some leave.

Personally, I doubt ***** will fall anytime soon.

This is a really long thread indeed just from the volume of views posted, and although has taken a while to read the mammoth posts, shows that providing proper service and realistic standards is highly valued amongst the majority here at WHT.

There is no possible way the hosting industry as it is can maintain ethics, codes of conduct, etc, other than what is set out by law in different countries being mainly based on business - trade laws. I see any attempt to set up any mechanism as being a fruitless enterprise when the line between inclusion and exclusion based on any criteria for a guild or group is judgmental and without means to uphold codes.

I see there is already a few forming a committee, etc yet who has the right to sit on any committee just becasue they founded it. Any such process surely should be conducted by people with proper skills in such areas opposed to people who may have good intent yet lacking whats needed. If this direction is being sought, then these issues do need to be addressed before continuing forward with any such venture.

The consumer drives the industry, not the host, and that is where the possible solutions are to protecting those potential customers from lack of information and disinformation. It would seem logical that the emphasis was on informing the person seeking information who was host hunting, instead of the inclusion and exclusion of hosts to a group or guild, revoving many potential problems between hosts in that environment.

A site with detailed information for potential customers in the industry explaining terms of reference, common misleading statements such as unlimited/unmetered etc, billing practices and transaction security, do's and dont's, concise information about reselling etc, etc would be greatly beneficial for customers and hosts alike. The setting up of a common standards code of practice derived on the non-use of misleading advertising and full disclosure within TOS statements, allowing hosts that are genuine in operating accordingly to put a small graphical link to the information site supporting the code.

There is no need for a host to be listed on any lists or databases, thus no affiliation or membership type body needed to include or exclude. The graphic link should not be a "member of whatever", rather stating info for hosting customers code or something along those lines. The general public can determine from themselves if a host is acting accordingly or not by what they list or hide if they have the information at hand, so hosts trying to decieve would think a bit harder about displaying any link if they are out to rip off customers.

Something along these lines would be much better for all instead of creating another guild or group that includes and excludes hosts, and potentially dangerous to customers in the end.

Nishtec

the first step would be to set up a site with some common guidelines to "educate" the customer and to help him to understand, for instance, that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, and so on.

Its a good idea but not sure how mcuh effective it will be. There are 2 web sites (i am aware of but don't rememeber links) which gives some award to web host on conducting business ethically. There may be more but I am not aware. In the same way most of the users will not be aware of the site we are planning (specially new users). Also when people miss to read the terms (where they can find "unlimited" is limited somehow) how we expect that they will come to our site.

But lets hope... and if there is a hope there is a way :)

Different opinion - I found one of the standard term here is "email response within 12 hours" No I don't agree with it. If our company claims a response within 1 hour, and reply after 11 hours, it is 100% unethical/wrong. On the other hand if a company offers response within 24 hours and reply in 23 hours, I have to say it is ethical. Therefore instead of "reply within 12 hours", it should be "reply within the time frame clamined by company on thier web site."

In fact only one line in set of standards is more than enough to close this issue forever.

"do not advertise what you can't offer"

note: and it is not possible sinc there are lots of crapy web hosting companies and there will be.

I feel, gathering your thoughts, that the answer to this is less of an organisational/regulatory requirement and more of general opinion of what individual companies should adhere to.

The legal implications of such organisations, and the management and regulatory involvement have been well underestimated by some but this has already been highlighted.

It has already been stated that the individual philosophies and ethics of a company is widely diverse. Some companies have a firm belief in “what you pay is what you get”, and on the other end of the spectrum “what you get is what we believe you should expect”. There is no true “one way” ethics to follow for this. Companies will not want to change the way that they work to suite a set of board members, but rather follow their own instinct of what makes a great company.

Perhaps this subject is a beacon to hosts to volunteer themselves to produce and advertise their own ethics for which they believe and abide by in the strictest sense, including the “what to do if’s” for which their customers can pursue in the event that they feel that such company ethics is not being portrayed. An organisation can therefore only provide a guideline ethical statement for which a company can adapt and tune to suite.

It has been highlighted already in a sense, however just to illustrate, a consumer would rather see a five star rating and hosting comparison by an independent company that collates information from millions of other consumers, than to find an icon on a website, To the keen “silver surfer” this icon would only illustrate that this web host is run by the ideals of a few not the ideals of his/her own wants and needs.

What of the “bad web hosts”? What can be done except allow the consumer to follow the opinions of others…

Originally posted by Nishtec
A site with detailed information for potential customers in the industry explaining terms of reference, common misleading statements such as unlimited/unmetered etc, billing practices and transaction security, do's and dont's, concise information about reselling etc, etc would be greatly beneficial for customers and hosts alike.Certainly true, but: almost every example I've seen of this type of site has some biases in its content. As an example: I remember reading at one such site a description of various methods of charging for bandwidth/data transfer, and the author's own opinion of what was the "right" way to do it was clear. If you're going to put together a site that dozens or hundreds or thousands of hosts will support, you'll have to be sure that you're completely neutral about any such things, otherwise you'll only appeal to those hosting companies that operate under one particular business model.

For example: take the "nomonthlyfees" business model; high setup fee; low or no annual fee after that "forever." Would you discourage site visitors from buying those services? Why? Is the company offering that kind of plan less "ethical" than those with a more traditional pricing approach?

Or: there was some sentiment in this thread that extremely low-cost hosts "cannot" offer the same level of service that higher-priced hosts can. Would you say that on the site? If so, you're excluding from membership any host that sees themselves as falling into this group.

Unless you're extremely openminded in writing your consumer information, and write in a completely neutral way, you'll risk turning away companies that feel that their approach, though different from the mainstream membership, is perfectly legitimate -- either turning them away from membership, or angering them if they're existing members. The bigger the organization is, the greater the probability for discord.

There are existing organizations that "certify" hosting companies for their business practices. At least one of these was founded by the operator of a large, and largely despised here, hosting company. If you look at their requirements for certification, you'll see that it'd be difficult for many of the relatively new and small hosting companies here to be certified under those standards. It's seems to me that this certification body was formed with that agenda in mind: to make large, established companies seem more legitimate than new, small startups.

In that case, in my opinion, they've decided to exclude a class of company from membership. In the end that's a lot easier to do, though, than it would be to be "all things to all people."

AniG: I don't think ENFORCEMENT is the solution or the point here. I think AWARENESS is just as important, if not more.

Annette: An organization like the one propsed has no standing to enforce anything, period.

cs1: After reading through the thread it seems all you guys want to do is make another BBB.

You can't enforce anything and you can't police your membership, so there seems to be little point in the organization as proposed. You don't need to create a new BBB: they already exist. If this incipient organization wants to do something REALLY useful, collect and post in one place the names of all hosts who have unsatisfactory ratings with the BBB, with links to those BBB reports. Then publicize the fact that this list exists. Send out press releases. E-mail websites and businesses accepting advertising from these hosts to let them know about it, and post about them as well. Educate webmasters on the value of filing reports with the BBB and AG and FTC regarding fraudulent activity by hosts. It *still* amazes me that, with all the dissatisfied ***** customers out there, there's no alert posted about them. It only takes 30 unresolved complaints for an alert, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if you know I'm wrong).

Now THAT would be a worthwhile project.

Originally posted by Walter
(host quality: 58/786) with the thread " Unlimihost.com - a 15-year-old running the company" (93/1877) THEN you have to be disapointed. Are hosts AND customers really more interested in bashing young business people than in quality?
Just wondering...


Wow, this thread is long...

Ne ways. I don't think the point of host-bashing is the age of the owner. My sisters and I started young too (not yet hosting then).

But then, there are a lot of young hosting company owners who do not know how to take responsibility for fraudulent actions. One such example was evident in the thread about Ta....host.

It is not actually the age itself that is being bashed, I guess. The issue is more about the maturity, and sense of responsibility (and dedication) of the company owner. I guess some people might confuse maturity with age, but this is a common mistake. And sadly, I do not blame them for feeling this way, especially when they have been ripped off by a very young person (like I had previously been).

This is a bit unfortunate though, because there are also young people out there who are honest and are trying to earn a decent living... :(

skysenshi hit the nail on its head. It all about maturity. People just don't know how to properly conduct themselves during business hours. This happens in all industries. Employees and owners alike think they know it all and that the client is always wrong.

Also, the use of unethical tactics has skyrocketed since the inception of the Internet. People will do anything to "screw" someone out of their hard earned money (excuse the language).

Its really sad that the hosting industry as a whole gets a bad name because of the unethical or un professionalism of just a few.