The hosting companies that are praised most frequently on this message board appear to differ greatly from the sites that come out on top at hosting review sites.

Looking through the threads I see a lot of positive comments about tera-byte, liquidweb, and hostrocket. None of these companies are rated well by review sites (a summary of top rated hosts is at http://www.webhostmagazine.com/ft/index.asp?Start=1&Display=100). Some of the top-reviewed hosts are the ones that get the most negative comments here.

I can not explain these differences. Could it be that the review sites inflate ratings of sites that give commisions? Maybe the review sites only look at the biggest hosts or don't consider resellers. Perhaps the review sites don't experience hosting and instead rate on features such as 1800 phone numbers and email response time. Does anyone else have better explanations?

Based on what you read on this message board, who would be on your list of top web hosts?

That's exactly what I'd ask. How does the company get to be #1? Often if you click the 'advertise on this site' link, the answer becomes clear.

Edit:
Not that I don't know how *that* site ranks hosts. They may not rank hosts on advertsing dollars alone, or at all. Often this *is* the case though. Regardless, you should question the means in which they do come up with the rankings. Without this information, the results are more or less useless.

When choosing a web host, what matters most is that you check with people who have similar sites and similar expectations.

Example: You might see a recommendation by JohnClient that host XYZ is the best! So you sign up then realize tech support takes 2 days to answer, which is fine for John, but not for you.

I believe that Communitech and ***** combined host over 50,000 domains. AIT hosts quite a bit as well. This doesn't mean that they have over 50,000 unsatisfied customers. Know whudda mean?

From my experience the review sites are BS.
If you want to find a good host
1) news groups
2) talk to people
3) message boards

That is the only way you'll get unbiased information. The review sites are in it for the money, always remember that.

i never trust hosting review sites that have ton of banners from several different hosting companies... most evidently, they are getting some kind of incentive to put that ad there.

altho some web host review sites have the 'rate a host' kinda thing, i don't trust these much either because most of them are 'reviewed/filtered' by that site before it is posted onto the review part. however, that is only my assumption... don't quote me on it, hehe

[edit]
agreed with energy :)

Yes
I visited that site this week and found that they had given five stars toa company that has overcharged me in the past and tried to hold a domain name to ransom.
I still have a design client using them and they are impossible to work with.
Over the past 2 years it has taken them at least 2 weeks to respond to simple support requests and yet in the review it said "very fast response time".

I have heard manu others say the same things.

It was all the shoddy service received from them that made me think I could do a lot better and set up my own web hosting company.

Its all very odd.

I would like to know how they test them.
Do they set up accounts as members of the public or do they phone up and say " we're from Web Hosting Magazine and we would like a test account?

Gordon

Web Host Magazine claims they are not influenced by advertising dollars, but I don't know if I believe them. They say:

The Influence of Advertising Dollars: The forums and Newsgroups are replete with examples of complaints about various selections being influenced by advertising dollars or some form of payola or quid pro quo agreement. Because of that, our HostFACTOR Ratings require an independent panel to evaluate companies against one another. The most important aspect of the HostFACTOR Ratings is that they remain objective and apart from any influence of advertising dollars or undue influence by our staff.

They claim to rate on a 100 point scale described as:

Support: You probably already know that the best companies are not afraid to show off their support features. Companies that do not have pro-active support tend to diminish the amount of space they give it.
Our list includes questions such as the following: Do they have 24/7 Toll Free Support? Do they have extensive online FAQs? Do they have Live Chat? Do they answer their Live Chat? Is their contact information easily available? Or is it just an email address or two? How well do they direct their customers to their "Support" or "Help" information? Is it hidden under a menu system? Is it a main menu item. How good is their guarantee? Do they bend over backwards to ensure their new customers are treated fairly? Because support is so important, we weight this at more than a third of the total score:
Points Possible: 35

Features: The best Web Hosts continually look for an edge over their competition. They add new product lines and services while maintaining their stability. They have the latest technology, the latest operating systems, the latest software add-ons, and the latest third-party goodies. They offer the features and services in convenient user-oriented ways that are reasonable in cost.
Points Possible: 15

Value: There are Free Hosts, Budget Hosts and Hosts with low cost Web Host Plans but that doesn't mean they offer value. Value is a subjective concept, but it can be measured by experience and comparison shopping. We look at the product/feature sets and benefits of the Hosts we rate and determine how they measure up against one another in their own Community in terms of their offerings per dollar spent. A higher priced Full Service Host offers more than just a lot of features, they generally offer stability, support and peace of mind. This could be considered real value when compared to other similar Hosts with lesser offering. A Budget Host may offer lower monthly costs and a minimum of extras, but it may have been operating smoothly, without complaint for several years. That would be an intangible that isn't readily apparent, but it would be considered a real value in most circles.
Points Possible: 15

Extras: We've found over the years that no two Hosts are really the same, despite similar plans and features. We look at the miscellaneous items such as "How long have they been in business?" or "Are they members of any Web Host Associations?" or maybe "Have we received any unsolicited email from their customers?" even "How well do they fare in the Chat rooms?" Extras can include features a similar Web Host may not provide, or extra service.
Points Possible: 15

FastTRACK Hosts: Our FastTRACK Hosts table is an important part of our HostFACTOR Rating. It lists all of the current Web Host winners as selected by the Web Host Finders. These Hosts had enough extra to get the nod from other industry experts and we give that a healthy score based on their showing.
Points Possible: 20

Note that ***** scored 92/100, which is one of their highest rated hosts.

Support - 35/35
(It sounds like some people here wouldn't give ***** a perfect score in the support category.)
Features - 14/15
Value - 13/15
Extras - 15/15
FastTrack - 14/20

By the way, I realize these scores add up to 91, not 92. It was not a missprint on my part.

Part of the Sep. 2000 review says "Even the online forums have been nice to *****, and that is something every Host treasures. " It sounds like the reviewers did not visit this online discussion forum.

[Edited by Seven on 12-31-2000 at 05:52 PM]

lol, very nice post, Seven. Posting comments for such a 4-star *****, I think miscalculating (or typo) between 91 and 92 is unacceptable.

I used to trust webhost review sites back long time ago, the most visited ones are tophosts and webhostdir. Then I signed up with addr.com based on their review for my ex-boss' small computer site. The service was terrible, nobody replied emails (yes after 2 weeks) or phones except the auto-created account, that's why they claimed activate in minutes. Another one is webhosting.com, I was always believed big hosts are the best because they listed their famous clients like Xerox, blah blah...

Anyway, after getting a lesson with addr.com, I stopped visit those sites, ever, but the problem is, many people like me still didn't/don't know the best info website like this. They like the design, the review and believe they can't be wrong, after signing up, they realized that but too late, and some of them don't want the hassle of choosing the new one.

Btw, I highly recommended http://www.your-site.com , which I've never seen any recommendation over here. Their support is great, I can say they're second tera-byte.

I'll second the recommendation for Your-Site - Jason and the team is absolutely fantastic and you can expect superb support 24/7.

Quite frankly *none* of the msg boards I know (and visit - SitePoint, HostSearch, UBB, Webmaster-Forums, DevShed etc.) have ever had a positive thread about ***** - and if anyone dared everyone who's been hurt by ***** before would come out of the woodwork.

They also obviously haven't bothered to take notice of Deb Suran's article about ***** either.

Thus, I'm forced to come to the conclusion that the magazine which posted such a review is absolute rubbish and fit only for shredded toilet paper on the other side of the world.

Yes BC, make sure it IS the other side of the world won't you?

Originally posted by Chicken
That's exactly what I'd ask. How does the company get to be #1? Often if you click the 'advertise on this site' link, the answer becomes clear.

I've increasingly come to distrust the "review" sites for just this reason... not to mention that I've seen some of the absolute worst hosting companies rated Number One on several of these often purportedly unbiased sites.

Seems to me it's a real good idea to research and listen to the experiences of others, via boards like this one, newsgroups, etc.

Although posts in such places are certainly not unbiased, a preponderance of bad reports on a given hosting company surely paints a red line through them on your list of possibilities.

Of course Laurence - problem is though, I'm not sure if etLux's Moldavian goats will even like the toilet paper that is the magazine. They may consider it too tabloid for their tastes :stickout

As has been mentioned, I discuss this at my webpage on finding a host: http://www.forumhosts.com/hosts.htm. There are a number of hosts that are well-known on the forums and newsgroups for truly awful service. If you check the ratings of these companies (*****, CommuniTech, TrueHosting, etc.) on the reviews/ratings sites, you can judge the accuracy and honesty of the reviews and the value of the sites. I myself signed up with three "hightly recommended" hosts, all of which were crap, before I caught on to this scam. In case you're interested, they were *****, Virtualis/Virtualisys, and TriStar Web.

Just for the record, BC, the goats are mannerly enough to avoid open expressions of dislike for toiletpaper of any kind.

Happy new millennium, everybody!

Aside from what has been mentioned already, there is a very practical reason why any reviews by hosting sites or magazines, even those that try to be objective, are severely flawed. Their reviews are based on what a host claims or has on their site, with only perfunctory checking of response time to questions.

That is entirely inadequate for the selection of a host. The only true measure of a host is how they treat their customers, all their customers. The great majority will have simple sites with a minimal use of resources, and may not have need of technical support for any reason. It is the others, those that have greater needs, that are the test of any host.

Let's face it, the criteria for selecting a host for a business site are more demanding than those for selecting a personal site, or at least less tolerant of failure. Most hosts will take either type and may have reviews based on custommrs with personal sites. They are totally irrelevant for the business person seeking a reputable host.

Concerns in selecting a proper host are more extensive than any quantified in any review I've seen thus far. Even magazines like PC Magazine, which does a creditable job on hardware and software reviews, cannot be trusted for reviews of web hosts.

You can't judge a book by its cover, nor can you judge a web host by its site. Some of the worst companies have the most impressive looking sites and offerings. Unfortunately, the people behind them have terriblke attitudes. Many are apathetic and incompetent.

Ultimately, web hosting is about the people in the company rather than the technologies. Those that forget that crucial fact often regret it.

Originally posted by Duster
The only true measure of a host is how they treat their customers, all their customers.[/B]

Add in decent connectivity and a reasonable price, and I'll go along with that, happily.

It's impossible to please every client, every time -- but a consistent record of timely, courteous, informed support is one of the most important aspects of choosing a host.

Thank you Chicken


[Edited by Newbie on 01-01-2001 at 09:39 PM]

I found a couple of very interesting items in this post:

Originally posted by Seven
You probably already know that the best companies are not afraid to show off their support features. Companies that do not have pro-active support tend to diminish the amount of space they give it.

From this statement, it sounds to me like webhostingmag bases much of their support rating (35 points) on how well the web host markets their support on their web site. It doesn't seem to matter from this description whether the web host actually follows through on the support - as long as they make it a major focus of their web site they're going to score highly. Unbelievable.


FastTRACK Hosts: Our FastTRACK Hosts table is an important part of our HostFACTOR Rating. It lists all of the current Web Host winners as selected by the Web Host Finders. These Hosts had enough extra to get the nod from other industry experts and we give that a healthy score based on their showing.
Points Possible: 20[/i]


Uhm... ok... so they claim they're not influenced by advertising dollars, but they award 20 points to hosts that win awards at other sites - with no guarantee that the other sites weren't influenced by advertising dollars.

I'm sorry - but after reading this I really think that their "independant panel" needs to be fired and new criteria brought in!

Jason

When I was first looking to host my site I went to all the "rating" places
mentioned above. Not knowing any better (it was my first attempt) I chose
one of the rated hosts - not the best and not the worst.
Boy, was that a mistake!
Fast support? "Fast" is a relative term - what was fast for them wasn't fast
for me. No one would answer the phones, they wouldn't return messages,
just awful. Not only did I choose a crummy host, I also paid for one year
in advance. Once I got my problems solved I stuck it out for the year and
I'm about to bolt.
This time, I tried the approach of hanging out where users and hosts hang out,
contacting hosts with questions and seeing what others recommend.
I learned some of the lessons mentioned previously. Hopefully I won't
make the same mistake twice. If I do, I'm only paying month to month
so I can jump quickly.

Newbie, wecome to WebHostingTalk!

I think it is best to start a new thread with new questions. Specific questions about a hosts TOS (AUP) should be emailed directly to the host.

Yes, even if you are on a dedicated server, there are things that can happen that affect the entire network. Spamming and dos attcks are two examples, but like I said, new thread, new question = easier for people to find and answer them. Okie dokie pokey?

I agree. How can you name someone #1? It has been my experience that sites that have the top 10 or top 25 ARE influenced by payola.

However, I do like the way Webhostmagazine gives a rating via the star approach. WYSIWYG concerning this, no beef about who is #1 or #25.

I also applaud *****s effort to make things right. They DID screw up, didn't have the right people, and spent a lot of money to right the wrong. They are getting a bad rap if you ask me.

Other than that, I think webhostmagazine does an excellent job reviewing web host directories and web hosts.

ROFL... I just love it when people do joke posts about CI.

***** is getting the rap they deserve, or perhaps you're unaware of the lawsuit pending against them?
http://www.evolvedsites.com/cipetition.html

Among the ratings sites that publish IP addresses for customer reviews, one can often determine which sites are artificially ranked higher by the relative similarities in IPs (e.g. 64.225.*.*). These posts are also distinguished by wording and grammar resembling the following:

i host my site http://www.somenobody.com at reallycrappywebhosting and the service is grate and the site is never down and i hope that mommy will change my diaper because i've been sitting in my own stinkypants for the last two hours go with them thye are gud

LOL SpiderJohn :stickout

You guys might be interested in going to:

http://forum.webhostsetc.com/showthread.php3?threadid=13

We started a review program and we will be using the forum to query existing customers on their experience with the host.

The responses will actually be listed in "Report Cards" for web developers to see.

Chris Henning
FindMyHost.com