I've been having a lot of unsatisfying experiences with Site5, despite the fact the host has (had?) been recommended here in the past. A while back I wrote a message which I was going to post here which I postponed.

However, just today, I received the following:


Dear Valued Site5 Customer,

We recently experienced a technical failure on the Hyperion web server. This incident has unfortunately resulted in minor data corruption both on the server and in data backups. Most of the data that was residing on this system has now been fully restored, however there were a few cases in which data could not be completely recovered, and will need to be re-uploaded or restored from your home/work computer. Please note that this issue does not affect all accounts on the Hyperion webserver, so your account may have experienced no problem whatsoever.

Additionally, if you are having trouble using features that are standard with your account (email, FTP, NetAdmin), please email shared@site5.com and we will resolve any outstanding issues for you right way.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause you. If you discover that your account was affected by this incident, please email billing@site5.com and we will issue a service credit to your account with us. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to a continued business relationship with you.

Best Regards,
Site5 Support Staff
shared@site5.com


Please note that their backup systems were also corrupted. One of the signs up an incompetent system administrator, I've noticed, is that they are unable to retrieve data rom backups. I think we have such a problem here.

In any case, I'll attach the message I was going to post earlier below. It was written a few months back so the things I addressed in it may have been fixed, but I hope you'll see that Site5 has been very unsatisfying as far as a webserver host goes for me. I'll be looking for another host today.

I can not believe their backup systems didn't prevent this screw up. My site is totally FUBAR. I have lost files and I even loss access to my account. Today they sent me a new account login to use, but mySQL access is still not possible! I definitely expect a service credit for this screwup. Someone recommend a better hosting service. I'm fed up.

Aagh, that sounds like a pretty nasty screw-up. :angry: I would email them demanding AT LEAST several months of free hosting, else leave them for a different host.

Here's the content of my original complaints against Site5. I want them to be here so that search engines pick up on my comments.

I just wanted to share some of my disappointing experiences with Site5. Now, I know that there are a lot of folks out there who are using their services and are happy with them, but I thought there may be people who may be swayed by reports like this. I hope this doesn't ruffle too many feathers...

I signed up onto Site5 due to their good reviews here as well as the features that they proposed on their site. When I first signed on for their virtual hosting (shared server) package, they placed me onto their nexus.site5.com server which, as people may have read here, has not been working properly for some time due to its NetAdmin web-based control panel being non-functional. I realize that I knew that the server wasn't working very well, but I still feel it was unprofessional for them to be offering services on such a server without first letting me know that I would be placed there.

This server was replaced about a week after I signed up and Site5 did credit my account for $10 which I appreciate. The new server that they purchased to replace nexus is named hyperion.site5.com and was supposed to fix NetAdmin and other issues. At least to my eyes -- it didn't. At first look, shell access, mysql, the "Analog" web-statistics package, and NeoMail (web-based e-mail client) were all non-functioning.

First off, shell access was rendered non-functional as, when I logged in, all I received was a message saying, "Shell access has been temporarily disabled." When I submitted a support ticket asking when shell access would be reenabled, I received the answer of "I'm unsure at this time when shell access will be re-enabled. It won't be any longer then a few days, and will hopefully be as short as only a few hours." The support ticket was immediately closed at that point.

Now, when I submit a support ticket, I, for one, expect that ticket to remain open until that issue has been resolved. Is this just me? When I asked through another support ticket, "Can you keep this support ticket open until it is cleared up on your part?", I received the reply of " It is resolved - Shell access will be re-enabled when it's possible to give users shell access again. Theres [sic] not really anything else I can say to you at this time."

A few days later, I decide to tfinding ry out their "chat rooms" which they offer as a part of their package. The first is a Javascript/Perl module which is very klunky-looking and not designed to be used on a professional site. The second, Melange Chat, is a Java-based chat room. Although I was a bit puzzled by the fact that they would use Melange 1.10 whose development was halted back in 1999 (although version 2 of its software was released in December of that year) , I decide to give it a try. Melange provides a mechanism to embed within its HTML a username in the manner of <param name="UserName" value="guest"> which I was going to use to enable authorized logins through a cookie-based session mechanism. Unfortunately, even with the above line (with the username defaulting to "username"), all users were being logged in as "unknown". When I asked about this, I received a note saying, "Thats [sic] how it works. Users are able to change their username after they've logged in." I found it strange that a chat room which supposedly has the feature to have usernames assigned before people login forces people to enter their username after they've logged in. I sent a piece of e-mail to the developer of Melange Chat but he has not yet responded, probably due to the fact that development of the software has not been going on for nearly two years now.

I then noticed that NeoMail, the web-based e-mail client (think Hotmail) did not handle creation and management of folders which was mentioned in its documentation (ie creating a folder didn't allow me to access it through NeoMail). When questioned, I received the answer of, "At this time, folders in NeoMail are not functioning properly. We are aware of this bug, and are working to resolve it." The support ticket was, of course, closed at that point.

I also asked them about their shopping cart which was advertised on their site because I could not find it in the NetAdmin control panel. Site5 replied that the shopping cart which they were advertising as a part of their shared server package was, in fact, not included and that they had forgotten to update their web page to reflect that fact.

In the past few days while doing PHP programming on my site, I noticed that my shell kept locking up every few minutes. I asked them about it and received the answer of, "This is a known issue with using the tcsh shell - I've changed your shell to bash, this should resolve the issue." Now, I've used tcsh for about eight years now and never have I had it lock up on me every few minutes. Besides that, I don't understand how Site5 provides their user with a feature which contains a "known issue" that makes that feature completely useless. If you were a car manufacturer and provided the option of either Foo Company's tires or Bar Company's tires when you bought the car when you knew that Foo Company's tires would cause the car to cut its engine every few minutes, would you offer Foo Company's tires?

I really hope I'm not being unreasonable here and I would appreciate it if people could tell me if I'm being such. Perhaps I've just become accustomed to running my own server and come to the expectation of things working?

I'm currently packing things up on my server and am going to be terminating my account with Site5 so that I can take advantage of their 30 day guarantee. I would love to know other reputable hosts which offer the same kind of features that Site5 purportedly has -- although, of course, I would like for them to work!

Thanks for reading this...

Hi Aiky,

I can certainly understand your frustration. I am not here to deny any of the problems that you outlined in your post, but I would at least like to offer somewhat of an explanation - and an apology.
Originally posted by akiy This server was replaced about a week after I signed up and Site5 did credit my account for $10 which I appreciate. The new server that they purchased to replace nexus is named hyperion.site5.com and was supposed to fix NetAdmin and other issues. At least to my eyes -- it didn't. At first look, shell access, mysql, the "Analog" web-statistics package, and NeoMail (web-based e-mail client) were all non-functioning.
This server move, because it was done somewhat in haste, did not go completely as according to plan. We were under quite a bit of pressure to get everyone onto the new server so that NetAdmin would once again be fully-functional. When moving 200-300 customers from one server to another, there is quite a bit involved. The first pass through, we didn't get everything entirely correct, but you can rest assured that we didn't stop working until it was all fixed. I, myself, worked a 24 hour shift during this transfer, slept 4-5 hours, and then turned around again to work another 20 - as did another admin. Things may not have been perfect, but we kept at it until the issues were worked through.

First off, shell access was rendered non-functional as, when I logged in, all I received was a message saying, "Shell access has been temporarily disabled." When I submitted a support ticket asking when shell access would be reenabled, I received the answer of "I'm unsure at this time when shell access will be re-enabled. It won't be any longer then a few days, and will hopefully be as short as only a few hours." The support ticket was immediately closed at that point.

Now, when I submit a support ticket, I, for one, expect that ticket to remain open until that issue has been resolved. Is this just me?

I certainly understand your complaint here. In fact, I remember this situation pretty clearly. This was shortly after we had completed the move to the new Hyperion server. The reason that shell access was not given at this time was because we were unable to get the kernel upgraded to the 2.4 series. After scouring the net for a couple of days, we finally figured out that the firmware on the RAID card needed to be updated to work with the 2.4 kernel series. The reason that we couldn't give shell access before completing this upgrade was because of well-known vulnerabilities in the kernel version that was on the server at the time.

While this may not be the issue at hand, you should know that we were working diligently to get the system to a state in which we could safely offer shell access. While shell was disabled, we did, however, receive quite a few requests (yours included) asking why it was not enabled. We simply responded to these as they came in and let customers know that we were working on the issue and that it would be re-enabled shortly. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable way to handle these requests - because with the support system that we were using, leaving a lot of open tickets slowed things down considerably.

In retrospect, it is pretty obvious that leaving these tickets open until the issue was resolved, and then closing them would have been a much better course of action. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. We were dealing with an influx of tickets as a result of the recent server transfer, and simply wanted to get things "under control". Closing these tickets before the issue was actually resolved was, unfortunately, an action that we took as a result of this added stress. However, we have since made it a point to leave tickets that have not been resolved open - or to provide customers with an easy means in which to re-open a ticket closed by our staff. In fact, it was your complaint at that time that prompted us to search for a new support system, and finally settle on the one that we are still using to this date.

A few days later, I decide to tfinding ry out their "chat rooms" which they offer as a part of their package. The first is a Javascript/Perl module which is very klunky-looking and not designed to be used on a professional site. The second, Melange Chat, is a Java-based chat room. Although I was a bit puzzled by the fact that they would use Melange 1.10 whose development was halted back in 1999 (although version 2 of its software was released in December of that year) <content edited for length purposes>

I then noticed that NeoMail, the web-based e-mail client (think Hotmail) did not handle creation and management of folders which was mentioned in its documentation (ie creating a folder didn't allow me to access it through NeoMail). When questioned, I received the answer of, "At this time, folders in NeoMail are not functioning properly. We are aware of this bug, and are working to resolve it." The support ticket was, of course, closed at that point.

I also asked them about their shopping cart which was advertised on their site because I could not find it in the NetAdmin control panel. Site5 replied that the shopping cart which they were advertising as a part of their shared server package was, in fact, not included and that they had forgotten to update their web page to reflect that fact.

These are certainly all issues that have plagued us in the past. Many of these issues are more specifically related to Cpanel software (the chat systems provided, NeoMail folders, etc.), and are somewhat out of our ambit of influence. The shopping cart problem, while it doesn't affect ALL Cpanel servers, has proven itself to be an unstable program - at least the way it is installed with Cpanel. We worked for quite a while to get this program running stable on all of our shared servers, however were not successful. We finally decided that removing the Interchange system altogether would be better than offering a shoddy, unreliable e-commerce solution. Unfortunately our site was not updated to reflect this decision until after the program was actually removed from our control panel. This was our mistake, and I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.

In the past few days while doing PHP programming on my site, I noticed that my shell kept locking up every few minutes. I asked them about it and received the answer of, "This is a known issue with using the tcsh shell - I've changed your shell to bash, this should resolve the issue." Now, I've used tcsh for about eight years now and never have I had it lock up on me every few minutes. Besides that, I don't understand how Site5 provides their user with a feature which contains a "known issue" that makes that feature completely useless. If you were a car manufacturer and provided the option of either Foo Company's tires or Bar Company's tires when you bought the car when you knew that Foo Company's tires would cause the car to cut its engine every few minutes, would you offer Foo Company's tires?

This issue I was unaware of. I have not yet heard nothing relating to the instability of tcsh. It seems a bit odd to me that one of the most popular shells around has a bug that causes it to simply lock up. I am going to look into this issue personally, and if it turns out that there really is a stability issue with this shell, will remove it from the list of shells that can be used. I certainly agree that if this is known to be buggy, it should not be offered - not without some kind of disclaimer or warning anyway.

I really hope I'm not being unreasonable here and I would appreciate it if people could tell me if I'm being such. Perhaps I've just become accustomed to running my own server and come to the expectation of things working?

You aren't being unreasonable - at least I don't think so. Our job, first and foremost, is to make sure that our customers are satisfied. Obviously we have not done our job very well in your case. And while we always hate to lose a customer, this in-depth explanation of your grievances (which was well written and done in a professional manner) is very helpful for us. In my opinion, it would have been much worse if you had left Site5 and not expressed your dissatisfaction. After all, if we don't know that the way we do something makes you unhappy, we can't address the problem.

To that end, I would like to think that if you do decide to find a new provider, your experience has not been entirely in vain. Site5's executive staff is going to be meeting on Monday, and you can rest assured that this will be discussed in great detail. I can personally assure you that we will do everything that we possibly can to avoid seeing another customer so clearly dissatisfied with our services.

The only true bad experience is one that you fail to learn from. Thank you for taking the time to write, it really does help.

Best Regards,
Matt Lightner
mlightner@site5.com

*Applauds Matt*

Now thats the way a host should conduct business here...


Instead of pointing fingures at other people, he owns up, and acts in a professional. For that kinda service, if I was looking for hosting, Site5 would get my business.....

WOW... that’s what you call professional. I think that a lot of host can learn from this. If I was akiy I will not look for another host and if I did I will let people know how well these people do business they admit their errors and don’t go and blame it all on the customer. Let me tell you Matt I just learned a lot from your post. I hope other host did as well.

:beer: for matt :)

Originally posted by Site5-Matt
Hi Aiky,

I can certainly understand your frustration. I am not here to deny any of the problems that you outlined in your post, but I would at least like to offer somewhat of an explanation - and an apology.

This server move, because it was done somewhat in haste, did not go completely as according to plan. We were under quite a bit of pressure to get everyone onto the new server so that NetAdmin would once again be fully-functional. When moving 200-300 customers from one server to another, there is quite a bit involved. The first pass through, we didn't get everything entirely correct, but you can rest assured that we didn't stop working until it was all corrected. I, myself, worked a 24 hour shift during this transfer, slept 4-5 hours, and then turned around again to work another 20 - as did another admin. Things may not have been perfect, but we kept at it until the issues were worked through.

I certainly understand your complaint here. In fact, I remember this situation pretty clearly. This was shortly after we had completed the move to the new Hyperion server. The reason that shell access was not given at this time was because we were unable to get the kernel upgraded to the 2.4 series. After scouring the net for a couple of days, we finally figured out that the firmware on the RAID card needed to be updated to work with the 2.4 kernel series. The reason that we couldn't give shell access before completing this upgrade was because of well-known vulnerabilities in the kernel version that was on the server at the time.

While this may not be the issue at hand, you should know that we were working diligently to get the system to a state in which we could safely offer shell access. While shell was disabled, we did, however, receive quite a few requests (yours included) asking why it was not enabled. We simply responded to these as they came in and let customers know that we were working on the issue and that it would be re-enabled shortly. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable way to handle these requests - because with the support system that we were using, leaving a lot of open tickets slowed things down considerably.

In retrospect, it is pretty obvious that leaving these tickets open until the issue was resolved, and then closing them would have been a much better course of action. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. We were dealing with an influx of tickets as a result of the recent server transfer, and simply wanted to get things "under control". Closing these tickets before the issue was actually resolved was, unfortunately, an action that we took as a result of this added stress. However, we have since made it a point to leave tickets that have not been resolved open - or to provide customers with an easy means in which to re-open a ticket closed by our staff. In fact, it was your complaint at that time that prompted us to search for a new support system, and finally settle on the one that we are still using to this date.

These are certainly all issues that have plagued us in the past. Many of these issues are more specifically related to Cpanel software (the chat systems provided, NeoMail folders, etc.), and are somewhat out of our ambit of influence. The shopping cart problem, while it doesn't affect ALL Cpanel servers, has proven itself to be an unstable program - at least the way it is installed with Cpanel. We worked for quite a while to get this program running stable on all of our shared servers, however were not successful. We finally decided that removing the Interchange system altogether would be better than offering a shoddy, unreliable e-commerce solution. Unfortunately our site was not updated to reflect this decision until after the program was actually removed from our control panel. This was our mistake, and I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.

This issue I was unaware of. I have not yet heard nothing relating to the instability of tcsh. It seems a bit odd to me that one of the most popular shells around has a bug that causes it to simply lock up. I am going to look into this issue personally, and if it turns out that there really is a stability issue with this shell, will remove it from the list of shells that can be used. I certainly agree that if this is known to be buggy, it should not be offered - not without some kind of disclaimer or warning anyway.

You aren't being unreasonable - at least I don't think so. Our job, first and foremost, is to make sure that our customers are satisfied. Obviously we have not done our job very well in your case. And while we always hate to lose a customer, this in-depth explanation of your grievances (which was well written and done in a professional manner) is very helpful for us. In my opinion, it would have been much worse if you had left Site5 and not expressed your dissatisfaction. After all, if we don't know that the way we do something makes you unhappy, we can't address the problem.

I would like to think, that if you do decide to find a new provider, your experience has not been entirely in vain. Site5's executive staff is going to be meeting on Monday, and you can rest assured that this will be discussed in great detail. I can personally assure you that we will do everything that we possibly can to avoid seeing another customer so clearly dissatisfied with our services. The only bad experience is one from which you fail to learn.

Thank you for taking the time to write, it really does us.

Best Regards,
Matt Lightner
mlightner@site5.com

Professional honest reply. I certainly agree that this is the way all hosts should do business. :)

Hey not to forget Calypso reporting extra bandwidth, I was the first to notice and report in their forums but I was told twice in response to my support tickets that its accurate. In the end, well... after I left, the support announced on their forums that the server did indeed reported extra bandwidth for some accounts. The thread I left at site5support was removed after their announcement but anyway I can't stand it so I left anyway.

Even when I cancelled my account they still said my bandwidth report was accurate because its a small figure (of course its a small figure, I haven't even point my domain to their servers and deactivated anonymous ftp on my 1st day, BUT~ I'd used almost 1GB bandwidth on just 1 week on upload and a bit of viewing on browser-->logs report barely even 10mb of traffic...doh... )

Hi Kraystone,

You are, of course, correct. There was an elusive bandwidth counting issue on Calypso last month. This problem was addressed, and as a result of the miscalculations, nobody on Calypso was charged for bandwidth overage for the month of October. :) We made a post in our forums notifying customers of this once we had straightened out the issue. This was a new server, and the bytes_log module had not yet been disabled, which was throwing off bandwidth counts for all accounts.

We do regret the fact that the bandwidth counts were inaccurate for this time period, but I think we were reasonable in not charging anyone for additional bandwidth for the entire month.

Regards,
Matt

oh, I know that, but I was told from the start that my bandwidth was correct (x2 support tickets) even when I cancelled my acc to say that my bandwidth report was wrong, your staff still insisted that my figures was *accurate. I got fed up and left Site5 with a record of only 1 week with you all, but soon after I cancelled, the annoucement was made... ... ... ...

Anyway what took you all 1 week to figure out... you all didn't believe in my complains because it was a small figure until 1 week later more and more error cases showed up...

Edit: Correction, during that 1 week, there were also similar cases posted on the forums and on my thread as well, but no staff replied to them for 1 whole week.

Matt's response is an example of why I have stayed with Site5 for over half a year now regardless of the technical problems we've encountered.

While my site is somewhat defunct now and not pushing the amounts of resources it once was, it required superb hosting so I can relate to your concerns about uptime and so forth. However, in my opinion and experience, no hosting company can offer 100% uptime and many can't offer 80% uptime regardless of what is said as there will always be SOME sort of problems here or there; whichever comes first. You have to get out of denial and come to realization that there is not a perfect host. Unfortunately, some problems will happen sooner in your stay rather than later which will lead you to believe otherwise.

Site5 has done the best they could possibly do to maintain a high level of quality hosting and customer care time after time. I've based my reasoning for paying my bill month after month on the SUPERIOR customer care they provide, not the high quality of hosting. Call that foolish, but that is what I value more and Site5 is up there with the best of them when it comes to customer care.

I'm currently in the process of starting a consulting firm and Site5 is currently #1 and the only one on the list of hosts to service the firms web site. However, I'm a straight shooter and limit the spin & BS, so things may change when the time comes but if the current trends are to be that of the future, we will be with Site5.

Hi, I know site5 has some supportive customers likewise unsatisfied customers, I do not think any hosting company has 100% supportive customers in which I'm just stating what I'm unsatisfied with it and inputing my feedback to WHT.

Good response doesn't mean customers sacrifice the website's performance

Originally posted by kraystone
I'm just stating what I'm unsatisfied with it and inputing my feedback to WHT.

Your point is understood completely, I was simply doing the same as you just expressing a different stance. I hope you didn't think I was stating you were out of line for your opinions, I was just replying with my own feelings.

By the way, believe it or not, I'm on Hyperion. I know about the problems from experience..

Originally posted by Jeff Rambo
no hosting company can offer 100% uptime and many can't offer 80% uptime

:eek: and you are OK with this? I am pissed if my server/connectivity does not have 99-99.5% or better uptime ...

cheers,
:beer:

In my experience with Site5, on that same recently-troubled server Hyperion, I've had better than 99.5% uptime over the past 8 months.

The nice thing about Site5 -- like no other host I've had -- is that when there's a problem that may even slightly endanger their 99.5% uptime guarantee, they offer credits immediately. No having to complain, no having to beg. No hassles.

Jeez, that's why I went with these guys in the first place. They don't nickel-and-dime you, they try to help out wherever they can, and they're just good guys to do business with. You don't ever get the impression that they're trying to squeeze you, or that they look at you and see dollar signs. It's just damn good business.

You people out there who want everything perfect -- try to get that for what you're currently paying. The only truly guaranteed 99.99% uptime you'll find is for far more than you're paying now, that's for sure.

Originally posted by dektong
:eek: and you are OK with this? I am pissed if my server/connectivity does not have 99-99.5% or better uptime ...

cheers,
:beer: Dektong,

When Jeff mentioned the 80% figure, I am fairly certain that he was not referring to Site5. ;)

bigmattyh:

Thanks very much for the kind words - it's nice for us to hear feedback like that. :)

Best Regards,
Matt Lightner
mlightner@site5.com

Oops ... No Matt ... I was not referring you, but his past hosts ... :D I would be surpised if you have that low uptime :D

To bigmattyh,

My experience with Site5 go along with what you said ...

cheers,
:beer:

Gotcha --

You know who I'm generally referring to, though. It's an attitude shared by far too many people who want far too much for much less than they're willing to pay.

Originally posted by bigmattyh
Gotcha --

You know who I'm generally referring to, though. It's an attitude shared by far too many people who want far too much for much less than they're willing to pay.

Well... nothing wrong with that, since host is willing to offer and people are willing to pay. 80% is really too low ...

Anyway there's still no explaination on why I was told 3 times that my bandwidth figures was correct (which it wasn't) by Site5 until more complains and threads turned up, then they look into the matter and made the announcement.

Where was them during that 1 week when I left my thread (high pageviews + replies) with other customers' complains on the site5support forums? Not even a single word of assurance that they'll look into it, nothing at all, not a single word from them except to answer my support tickets that they were correct... :rolleyes:
(Even to the day I cancelled and explained that the bandwidth figures were wrong, I still got their reply that mine was probably correct as I mentioned earlier on...oh well...)

We were afraid that Site5 will overcharge us for bandwidth we didn't use, they did not give us assurance that they will look into it. I was even told that it was correct, so how could I stay on, of course I left. Who knows such heart-attacking cases will emerge again and I have to wait till they bother to check up and announce...

so POOF! Now my thread was deleted and they left a note at the other thread that Calypso was indeed reporting wrong bandwidth. Seems good service to you all but doesn't look the same to me

Originally posted by kraystone

We were afraid that Site5 will overcharge us for bandwidth we didn't use, they did not give us assurance that they will look into it. I was even told that it was correct, so how could I stay on, of course I left. Who knows such heart-attacking cases will emerge again and I have to wait till they bother to check up and announce...Hi Kraystone,

You can rest assured that we would not have billed you for bandwidth that you didn't use. We personally review each account that goes over the bandwidth limit, and compare it with other logs on the system to make sure that the figures that we have are correct and reasonable. When it comes to peoples' money, we don't take matters lightly - no dignified company ever should.

As to why we did not acknowledge the problem at first, I am uncertain. We're only humans over here - the servers don't explain their problems to us (yet ;)). However, after it became apparent that this was a problem, we were finally able to locate the cause and adjust everyone's account accordingly.

At any rate, I'm sorry to hear that you were dissatisfied with our service. We are certainly sorry for any anxiety that this matter caused you, and I personally wish you the best of luck elsewhere.

Best Regards,
Matt Lightner
mlightner@site5.com

Originally posted by Site5-Matt
When Jeff mentioned the 80% figure, I am fairly certain that he was not referring to Site5. ;)

Certainly not.

Originally posted by Site5-Matt
Hi Kraystone,

You can rest assured that we would not have billed you for bandwidth that you didn't use. We personally review each account that goes over the bandwidth limit, and compare it with other logs on the system to make sure that the figures that we have are correct and reasonable. When it comes to peoples' money, we don't take matters lightly - no dignified company ever should.

As to why we did not acknowledge the problem at first, I am uncertain. We're only humans over here - the servers don't explain their problems to us (yet ;)). However, after it became apparent that this was a problem, we were finally able to locate the cause and adjust everyone's account accordingly.

At any rate, I'm sorry to hear that you were dissatisfied with our service. We are certainly sorry for any anxiety that this matter caused you, and I personally wish you the best of luck elsewhere.

Best Regards,
Matt Lightner
mlightner@site5.com

Well, thanks for the apologies :), hopefully your servers are behaving better and don't scare clients again. And ... don't leave them hanging around your support forums helplessly for days after days without giving any response.

Originally posted by kraystone
Well, thanks for the apologies :), hopefully your servers are behaving better and don't scare clients again. And ... don't leave them hanging around your support forums helplessly for days after days without giving any response. *noted* ;)

Matt