Many of you know that Hosting Weather Report (http://www.hwr.us) is going to be launched soon, to that end I have spent a lot of time looking for hosting companies, and getting signed up with various providers. I have already posted a review for Fluid Hosting, so I won't repeat, but I wanted to talk about the other three companies I am using for this project.

All three hosts that I am working with provided me with a basic Unix account (either BSD or Linux) for $9.95 a month. I pay for all three accounts, so there is no favoritism in my reviews.

1. Voxtreme (http://www.voxtreme.com/):
Site hosted: http://south.hwr.us/
I worked closely with Matt getting the account set up, he was quick to respond prior to setting up the account. Once the account was set up, any issues I had (I needed some things customized, so I expected to use support extensively, initially) I used their online ticketing system. Response was always fast and courteous.

I only had two issues with Voxtreme. The first was that I did not initially have SSH access, and had to justify it -- from an operational standpoint I think that is a good policy, but from a customer standpoint it bugged me :). Once I made the request for SSH access, it was granted to me within a couple of hours.

The second issue had to do with network performance. Initially, the network was much slower than the other sites. I spoke to Matt about it, and the problem cleared up pretty quickly, though I am not sure what what the cause of the problem was.

Downtime has been non-existent since the network issues I saw went away, and the service continues to be great.


2. Vilitas (http://www.vilitas.com/):
Site hosted: http://mw.hwr.us/
I worked with Scott to get this account set up. The service and response time has been amazing. All of my requests have been answered promptly -- including helping me debug a problem in the script that was creating a conflict with the control panel Vilitas uses. Scotthas even followed up a couple of times to make sure everything is going well.

The uptime and network performance have also been excellent. I only have nice things to say about Scott and Vilitas.


3. Canada Web Hosting (http://www.canadawebhosting.com/):
Site hosted: http://west.hwr.us/

If you cannot get to the site hosted at Canada Web Hosting that is because I have not been able to get the site online. HWR requires a couple of Perl modules installed. I have been waiting since Thursday to have this done. As of this writing it has not, and I am extremely unhappy. When I placed my order I asked about getting them installed (as I did with Voxtreme and Vilitas), that request was ignored when I was issued my sign up information. So, I asked one of the engineers to add the module using their chat room and it was not done, so I opened a ticket last Thursday and have requested updates twice. Both times I have been told that it was being escalated, but still no modules.

I can't provide any other information about Canada Web Hosting at this time, because my site won't run without those modules.

I too had very poor experience with Canada Web Hosting. Even after I paid for my account and produced the receipt they never set it up. No refund either. Avoid them.

webellian

webellian - Your post looks a bit dodgee considering it's your only post and you registered at WHT today, however should it be legitimate, which I hope it is, my advise would be to file a charge back if they are not responding to your refund requests. Have you tried contacting them about this issue?

I am intersted to know how you came to that list of top 20 companies.

Some of them are rather small. What are the requirments

Originally posted by JBIZ718
I am intersted to know how you came to that list of top 20 companies.

Some of them are rather small. What are the requirments

The top 20 hosts are based on response time, and vary by location. By basing the top 20 entirely on response time, it remains an independent measure.

How does a host get on your site?

nevermind

Originally posted by uuallan
Many of you know that Hosting Weather Report (http://www.hwr.us) is going to be launched soon, to that end I have spent a lot of time looking for hosting companies, and getting signed up with various providers. I have already posted a review for Fluid Hosting, so I won't repeat, but I wanted to talk about the other three companies I am using for this project.
<SNIP>
I pay for all three accounts, so there is no favoritism in my reviews.


Hmmm... you are hosted with Fluid, so you "appear" to be biased whether you are or not. They are also on the top of your list. Of course, you are going to get a quick time of 1 ms from the same server, and that puts them on top (not meant as anything bad against Fluid).

I've read your reviews, and, IMHO, I find them to be unthorough and biased. Giving an unbiased honest view is helpful, but it also makes people mad. I should know. I tried doing something similar a few months ago when I compared some hosts in this forum.

I also see some possible problems with your approach. Do you let the host know that you are testing them ahead of time? Do you have more than one person review each host? Do you check out their website and TOS to see if they are honest? etc, etc.

Originally posted by chrisb

Hmmm... you are hosted with Fluid, so you "appear" to be biased whether you are or not. They are also on the top of your list. Of course, you are going to get a quick time of 1 ms from the same server, and that puts them on top (not meant as anything bad against Fluid).


I am hosted with 4 different companies, Fluid and the companies listed above. Fluid only shows up in the number one spot one of the HWR sites, not on all of them. Yes, they are number one on that site because we are in their data center, so they are closer than any of the other hosts, the same thing can be said about the other hosts and their locations as well.

In addition, since the location of east HWR site is fully disclosed -- down to the name of the hosting company (http://www.hwr.us/about.php) it should come as no surprise that these hosts have faster reponse times.


I've read your reviews, and, IMHO, I find them to be unthorough and biased. Giving an unbiased honest view is helpful, but it also makes people mad. I should know. I tried doing something similar a few months ago when I compared some hosts in this forum.


A review is, by definition, biased. It is your opinion about something, so it is impossible to give an unbiased review. My reviews are based on my experiences with these companies and how they responded to things that were important to me. I think most people realize that when reading reviews.

As to the reviews being unthorough, I am not sure what else you are looking for, but as I pointed out, I covered the topics that were important to me...the reader can do what they wish with the information.


I also see some possible problems with your approach. Do you let the host know that you are testing them ahead of time? Do you have more than one person review each host? Do you check out their website and TOS to see if they are honest? etc, etc.

Did you look at my site, or are you just bored and felt the need to listen to your keyboard go clickety-clak?? HWR serves a very specific purpose...it measures the HTTP response of various hosting companies. That's it, that is all it does. The top 20, as I explained earlier, is the list of top 20 hosts based on HTTP response, nothing more, nothing less.

I do not let any host know that I am measuring their HTTP response, but it does not matter because most of the hosts are added by their owners.

There are no reviews of hosts on HWR, it is not a review site...again, if you looked at the site for 2 seconds you would have seen that.

I don't care if they are honest, I don't care what their TOS states, I am only interested in their HTTP response. There are too many other "directory" sites that do reviews, etc...that is not the purpose of this site.

Please do me a favor and actually look at the site on which you are commenting. The reviews I posted above are for companies that HWR uses to conduct monitoring of other hosts. They have nothing to do with the purpose of HWR.

Yes, I went to the site. No need to be sarcastic about it. I just misunderstood the purpose of your site. Here's why I misunderstood...

You posted 3 reviews above and said that you would not repeat one for Fluid, so I went to the site looking for a review.

If you are just giving http response times, I really don't see much purpose in what you are doing... but maybe I'm missing something.

Originally posted by chrisb

You posted 3 reviews above and said that you would not repeat one for Fluid, so I went to the site looking for a review.


Ahh...I think most people correctly assumed I meant a review posted on WHT. Especially, if they went to the site, and there were no other reviews.


If you are just giving http response times, I really don't see much purpose in what you are doing... but maybe I'm missing something.

Yes you are, you are missing the point of the thread, which was to post a review for the three hosts above. In answer to your question though: HTTP is completely objective, especially when done from multiple locations. Too many "review sites" are poisoned either by people with a grudge, or by hosts looking to bolster their status. This is an objective measurement: how fast does a host perform from multiple locations?

I like objectivity...so it serves my purposes. You are welcome to disagree, please do so in another thread.

Have you considered running a script to combine all the locations and providing an average? I thought the "All Host" was, but it seems to favor one location. :)

Originally posted by uuallan

I like objectivity...so it serves my purposes. You are welcome to disagree, please do so in another thread.
I agree that objectivity is good. If you really like objectivity as you say, then you should appreciate it when people post an opinion that doesn't exactly coincide with yours. That way you get a different viewpoint, similar to getting a different response time from a different server.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Have you considered running a script to combine all the locations and providing an average? I thought the "All Host" was, but it seems to favor one location. :)

Yes, the second phase of the roll out will have another column that has the average for all sites.

Originally posted by chrisb

I agree that objectivity is good. If you really like objectivity as you say, then you should appreciate it when people post an opinion that doesn't exactly coincide with yours. That way you get a different viewpoint, similar to getting a different response time from a different server.

opinion != objectivity. I am all for comments/criticism of the site, but this is not the thread for it because this thread deals with my reviews of other sites. I actually have two different threads in the design forum that were for criticizing the site.

In addition you said:

I also see some possible problems with your approach. Do you let the host know that you are testing them ahead of time? Do you have more than one person review each host? Do you check out their website and TOS to see if they are honest? etc, etc.


These comments show a lack of understanding of the purpose of the site, and therefore would not be valid criticisms.

This seems like an intelligent debate. Keep up the good work.

Actually I think this is a petty good idea, both for customers, and webhosts. It's always nice to see how you stack up compared to other businesses, in a variety of ways. If it proves there's issues as far as connectivity goes then you can take steps to correct them.

Greg Moore

The analysis is skewed from the start (no offense uuallan, just offering some objective criticism). Considering your relationship with WHT, you would have had to approach this project with complete anonymity. Of course, perhaps you did?

Originally posted by Rotifer
The analysis is skewed from the start (no offense uuallan, just offering some objective criticism). Considering your relationship with WHT, you would have had to approach this project with complete anonymity. Of course, perhaps you did?

Not sure what you mean? Are you talking about my reviews or HWR itself?

I'm talking about the reviews, I'll take a look at your site though.

Along the lines of New York Times food critics. They don't announce that they are dining at a restaurant that evening, the host would go out of his/her way to prepare the most exquisite meal. Rather, they appear anonymously and sample the experience of the average diner.

Allan, I don't think it is your project people have an problem with. I think it is you.

You come around here. You make post. You start threads. Mr. Fancy-pants......

Originally posted by Rotifer
Along the lines of New York Times food critics. They don't announce that they are dining at a restaurant that evening, the host would go out of his/her way to prepare the most exquisite meal. Rather, they appear anonymously and sample the experience of the average diner.

Ahh...okay. That is true, I may have been given special treatment because of my affiliation with WHT (though, certainly not in the case of Canada Web Hosting :D). That does not mean the service and response times at these hosts are any better/worse for other people, as with anyone else, I can only report my experiences...YMMV.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Allan, I don't think it is your project people have an problem with. I think it is you.

You come around here. You make post. You start threads. Mr. Fancy-pants......

Ohh...that explains it :D. Sheesh, I wish people would have told me that I was acting all cocky and whatnot :D. Its not my fault that I am blessed with Fonzie-like cool (for the kiddies on here, watch TVLand to get the Fonzie reference).

I guess I'll just throw a huff and go start my own Hosting Forums ::ducking::

I also see some possible problems with your approach. Do you let the host know that you are testing them ahead of time?

I guess Chris touched on this. I think you have a great idea, drop the hosting sponsorship and acquire accounts anonymously.

Originally posted by Rotifer

I guess Chris touched on this. I think you have a great idea, drop the hosting sponsorship and acquire accounts anonymously.

There is no sponsorship, I pay for all of the accounts.

There is no sponsorship, I pay for all of the accounts.

I understand that you pay for the accounts, I remember when you posted in the "hosting request" section. What I was referring to was the "hosted by Fluid Hosting" portion of your signature.

Originally posted by Rotifer

I understand that you pay for the accounts, I remember when you posted in the "hosting request" section. What I was referring to was the "hosted by Fluid Hosting" portion of your signature.

I'm not sure why anyone would see that as a problem...I get great service from the guys at Fluid Hosting, and want to let people know about it. It is irrelevent to HWR.

I'm not questioning your ethics. However, considering the dodgy relationship many of them have with advertisers, people tend to be skeptical of sites offering evaluations of host performance.

Edit: That was an ugly sentence.

Originally posted by Rotifer
I'm not questioning your ethics. However, people tend to be a bit skeptical of sites purporting to offer unbiased evaluations of host performance considering the dodgy relationships many of them have with advertisers.


I still don't see what that has to do with mentioning Fluid Hosting in my signature? I'm curious, aside from Chris and Jeff, does anyone else have a problem with me including the name of my hosting company in my sig?

Although, it does not really matter...I'm changing my sig tomorrow anyway :).

It actually gave me the impression that datacenterwire.com and fluidhosting.com were run by the same person. Since that's not the case...well, I can see their point of view. It does show favorism, but that's not stuff I really care about....but yeah, I can see both their points, and yours.

I just changed my signature ... here is what is says

Max 4 Lines allowed, plain text only, no VB code. One hyperlink per signature. See forum rules for more information.