I am a long time WHT fan getting tired of all the hosts bashing competitors and acting like a vulture whenever a host is down or has other problems.

Just look at the acutal issue with Angelnetworkz:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=314630

Disgusting! Hosts that try to be "helpful" by posting comments like "I wonder if Donna will claim that this isn't their fault" and other "helpful" comments.

Please, don't get me wrong, I have no relationship with Angelnetworkz and I too think they have a serious problem, but would I come to a thread posting about them? No, certainly not.

Of course this is not limited to hosts, at the time the Paysystems problem arose all of a sudden there were two or three merchant account broker trying to be "helpful" and every third post of them was "Oh, I am so sorry about this dilemma".

My suggestion: the rules simply should forbid this vulture manners.

These threads are hard to monitor when they grow at the speed of light, we would need to watch every post and that isn't a viable situation as we have a heck of lot more to do than watch one or two threads. I can only hope that the providers replying remain respectful and don't abuse the rules.

Specifically "Participants may not use discussions to recommend, praise, or belittle other products or services, or any company; without first hand experience of those products or services. This includes companies recommending other companies. Any post not meeting a moderator's criteria will be removed without notice. " If you see anyone overstepping this mark, please report it, the same as you would if a provider recommended him/herself.

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
These threads are hard to monitor when they grow at the speed of light, we would need to watch every post and that isn't a viable situation as we have a heck of lot more to do than watch one or two threads.

I am a mod at a big forum myself, you don't have to watch these threads, but you have to set rules and you have to rely on your members to report abusive posts :)


Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
I can only hope that the providers replying remain respectful and don't abuse the rules.

The problem is that some "clever" providers spam these threads with useless posts that don't breach the current rules. Some of the threads at WHT consist of 1 question asked, 1 answer provided and 10 posts by hosts without adding any content and just stating "yes, indeed" or repeating the answer.

Originally posted by Walter
. . . Of course this is not limited to hosts, at the time the Paysystems problem arose all of a sudden there were two or three merchant account broker trying to be "helpful" and every third post of
Yeah, I know that thread well. There was a few posters that sprang up with big red bold fonts in their sigs - "Burned by Paysystems? - we have a solution" (etc).

Pretty lame pimping and taking advantage of a bad situation. I guess the lure of all those fish so tighly packed into 1 fishing hole, was too much for some to resist.

But, there was also 1 WHT regular who was genuinely trying to help, and doing a very good job too. Sure, he might have got some business out of it, but I believe he was genuine with his participation and was an asset to those in distress.

I agree with what you're saying though.

Probably should disable sigs in that host down forums. The vulture thing is rediculos.

Originally posted by KimmiKat
Probably should disable sigs in that host down forums. The vulture thing is rediculos.

Good idea... much agreed.

Sirius

I agree something has to be done, it's simply getting out of hand.

To turn off the signatures in the Host Down forum is indeed a good idea.

But how do you think about the thread I mentioned in my first post? And this wasn't in the Host Down forum...

I followed and participated in that thread for a few hours last night. I did not get the impression that unethical competitors are using this opportunity to lure customers away from ANz. Almost everyone who posted in the thread were on topic, discussing the apparent unplugging of ANz servers by their provider TMS for non-payment.

At times when words were testy, I asked people to contain themselves. Overall, I think it's a good thread that documented the relavent information current and prior to the unplugging. A couple affected customers went to LiquidWeb.com for replacement servers. But LiquidWeb.com (as far as I know) never posted or approached anyone in PM! The only unusual aspect about that thread is the high level of emotion.

I am neither a competitor or a current customer of ANz, although I did come close to being a customer 10 days ago. I still have emails between Donna and me discussing the terms of my server, luckily for me the deal fell through.

If you suspect or see anyone soliciting ANz customers, then you should point them out so the moderators can look into it. Otherwise hinting something improper is going on with the thread (and suggesting that a policy change is needed) will discourage people from contributing to WHT in the future, and ultimately decrease the usefulness and importance of WHT. Let people discuss their opinions and experiences (good or bad) freely about companies that they come into contact with. The market will efficiently distinquish the lies from the truth.

Just one small example: a competitor posts in this thread:

I wonder if Donna will claim that this isn't their fault. It always seems to come across that way in her postings....

I don't want to comment if his comment is true or false, but I just think that such a comment is not apropriate for a competitor.

Originally posted by Walter
Just one small example: a competitor posts in this thread:



I don't want to comment if his comment is true or false, but I just think that such a comment is not apropriate for a competitor.

Why not? If you go back and read Donna's posts to this forum, it's an accurate statement. I don't think Matt exactly competes in the server for $10 market, either. Is there some rule against people commenting on the public behavior of others, even when both are hosts?

Originally posted by twidnet
Why not? If you go back and read Donna's posts to this forum, it's an accurate statement.

Let's forget if these bad things are true or not, but what is the motive of a host to post bad things about another host?

Originally posted by twidnet
Why not? If you go back and read Donna's posts to this forum, it's an accurate statement. I don't think Matt exactly competes in the server for $10 market, either.

It wasn't Matt alone, I see several hosts:

mainarea: servers starting at $80 per month
server4sale: servers starting at $47 per month

and so on...

Originally posted by twidnet
Is there some rule against people commenting on the public behavior of others, even when both are hosts?

No, currently not, but we are discussing about a rule change :)

You'd probably like to assign them a motive of trying to steal customers. I'd like to think people could make up their own minds about what those motives are. I'd also like to think that people, even other hosts, have the ability to spot a disaster like angelnetworkz (AN) and comment on it accurately. There's no shortage of support for that conclusion.