For Internet Week Magazine, I am writing an article on how to choose a web-hosting provider. I was wondering if anyone who like to suggests:

1. Questions you should ask of a web hosting provider?
2. Any interesting experiences in evaulating or working with a provider?
3. Anything you wish you know when you went out looking for a web hosting provider?

Thanks<
Joe Mullich
Internet Week Magazine
joemullich@aol.com

You may find parts of http://HostHelp.com/ helpful... specifically http://HostHelp.com/questions.php

Deb

Hi Joe,

The questions listed on HostHelp.com are great. I would just like to add that contacting them several different times is not a bad idea. That way you can see if there is a pattern, good or bad.
Pay attention to how they respond - are they courteous, do they seem knowledgeable, was the response timely, did the responses match the information on the page?

Also look at claims made on their web page. For example, I have seen hosts that claim to be "worldwide leaders in support or customer service" yet when you look at their website it is hard to find a link to any kind of support documentation or how to contact them. I am always kind of leary of any company that doesn't put or tries to bury, their contact or support information, or their acceptable use policy/terms of service.

Things I wish I had known prior to finding my first host (aka The Worst Horst Ever):
That there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth.
That the newsgroup alt.www.webmaster existed.
That the discussion boards such as this one existed.

Here is a page that has links to some of the discussion boards: http://www.hostcompare.com/discussandreview.htm

Stephanie

Joe,

Though by no means complete, I have some helpful information on my site at http://techcellence.net (right side menu). I wrote and compiled much of that information before I even found this site in an effort to help others avoid some of the problems I have had in the past, and that many others have had as well.

Those looking for a host should remember that no single host can be all things to all people. Therefore, there is no such thing as a best host for all. It is highly subjective and will vary as much by one's needs and expectations as by the offerings of various hosts.

Also, and this is most important, the character of a company is the most important thing to look for. Everything else is secondary to that. Even so, it is seldom talked about until problems arise.

You have only to read some of the other posts here and on similar forums to realize the truth of that statement.

I wish I had known how hosts handle popularity of a site and if they had any plans for upgrading customers. The mere presence of various service plans is not enough, nor should it be taken as evidence that any such plan exists. What to us is increased popularity of our sites is what many hosts call abusing resouces. Perhaps calling it abuse justifies (in their minds) their abusive treartment of us.

You can read my experiences and the abusive treatment I received from AIT at http://www.webhostingtalk.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000007.html Over 300 people are now experiencing something only slightly less heinous with Communitech.net. At least they were given a meagre two days notice, whereas AIT shut me down with no notice at all (other than their poor attitude, which was indicator enough that I needed to change).

You can see more examples of the Communitech fiasco at scriptkeeper.com

Something else I would want to know is what steps a hosting provider takes to reduce the flow of spam. For instance, what features are enabled in their mail program, do they subscribe to the various MAPS features, and which ones?

I think any sound choice of a host will start with a list of those that meet one's needs now and for the near future, one with an upgrade plan, not even considering any that have "unlimited bandwidth" and other lies and deceptions, and checking on their service.

Then the real work begins, investigating their character. That may reduce the list even further as seemingly reputable companies are eliminated. One of those is PC Magazine's Editor's Choice, Interland, now a spam haven and with worse service than before.

Much of the process will be the same in choosing a shared server solution or a dedicated server hosting facility. Character may not be everything, but it's definitely the most important quality in any host.


[This message has been edited by Duster (edited 07-26-2000).]

More thoughts:

People looking for a shared server host should be aware of the correlation between bandwidth and cpu usage. Many hosts promise all the bandwidth you want and nail you when the cpu usage hits the limit.

Poeple should be aware of the difference between a virtual host and virtual server. A virtual server is a better account for those who want more control and flexibility and is a good learning experience for those who may eventually move to a dedicated server.

What to look for:

Full disclosure

Hosts that have their full TOS/AUP linked to their service plans, especially if you must acknowledge reading them when you order. Some hosts hide their TOS and only trot them out when you have violated some heretofore undisclosed policy and suspend or terminate your account.

Hosts that have fair TOS. Too many are unequitable and do not consider the needs of the client. This includes referring to popularity of a site as abusing resources. That is an indicator of the attitude of many hosts that is reflected throughout the entire TOS.

We have a few hosts that participate here and have altered their sites in order to be more accurate and fair. Take a look at http://www.can-host.com and http://www.atlantawebhost.com They are not the only ones, to be sure, but they are generally good examples of companies responsive to customers and wishing to provide accurate terminology and TOS.

The very best business transactions are those in which both parties are satisfied, and that only happens with equitable terms, something too uncommon in web hosting. Even some good companies have rather poor contracts and terms of service that lack any sense of fairness. It would be nice to be able to depend on their written terms as representative of the company. After all, that is what many will judge them on initially. Fortunately, some of these companies are better in practice than their written terms would lead one to believe.

Humor: One clause many TOS have is laughable and would not stand up in court. It goes something like this:

Age:
The Client certifies that he or she is at least 18 years of age. If the client is not at least 18 years of age, then he/she has been granted the permission by his/her legal guardian to act on that guardian's behalf. Under these circumstances, the underage client has been granted permission to use [company}'s services and enter into this agreement on behalf of the legal guardian.

A minor cannot enter into a contract, period. A guardian can enter into a contract on a minor's behalf, but not the other way around. I laugh when I see this clause as it indicates that no one gave serious thought to what it says. Unfortunately, that means they probably did the same with other clauses and terms that have a greater effect on us.

As part of a general theme of honesty, I would avoid hosts that proclaim themselves leaders, the best, and similar epithets. Instead, I would choose those who state what they provide (and provide what they state) and let each user decide how good they are for themselves.

On my site, and here, I refer to some hosting companies as being like the worst used car salesmen, They promise you anything and everything in oreder to get your money, all the while knowing they have no intention of honoring anything they have promised. Even a money back guarantee means nothing if the company is not reputable to start with. A guarantee is worthless of itself. It only has value if the company making it can be trusted.

For that reason, people should beware of any shared server plan that requires payment for 6 months or a year up front, or even a contract for that same length of time. I've seen too many people burned that way.

A host should rely on their service in order to keep customers, not a contract. Given the costs and inconveniences in moving a site, poor service is likely the primary reason for moving from one host to another.

Something else to look for are hosts that do not charge set up fees. Some have an automated system that requires no human intervention at the host end. Even adding a host manually does not take more than a few minutes, so any charges are just a form of gouging the customer.

For perspective, I have been hosting my customers for about two years now and recently got my own dedicated server, so I've seen both sides of the hosting issue (as have many others here).