10-best-web-site-and-domain-hosting-services.com

Who owns it, REALLY??

I have my suspicions. But I'm not 300% certain.

Consumer Report Services Corp.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
US

Consumer Reports? :confused:

LOL

I don't think so. :rolleyes:

I wonder if they would be as good as choosing hosts as they do with other stuff.

My guess is; YES.

I just saw the site, and I would doubt it also.

1. An "nslookup 10-best-web-site-and-domain-hosting-services.com" reveal that the IP is 64.38.111.240, that ip is ownd by HOSTING-NETWORK, INC.

2. The company at their 1. spot is featureprice.com, that has IP 64.38.96.100, that IP is also owned by HOSTING-NETWORK, INC.

3. At hosting-network.com it is noting apart from a link to featureprice.com

4. The whois has been anonymosided to cover up who is really behind the domain.

Sow I would guess HOSTING-NETWORK INC owns 10-best-web-site-and-domain-hosting-services.com, and are using it for self promo.

There site has been the same for months ... I am gussing the same as Kongen ...

Originally posted by kongen
1. An "nslookup 10-best-web-site-and-domain-hosting-services.com" reveal that the IP is 64.38.111.240, that ip is ownd by HOSTING-NETWORK, INC.

2. The company at their 1. spot is featureprice.com, that has IP 64.38.96.100, that IP is also owned by HOSTING-NETWORK, INC.

3. At hosting-network.com it is noting apart from a link to featureprice.com

4. The whois has been anonymosided to cover up who is really behind the domain.

Sow I would guess HOSTING-NETWORK INC owns 10-best-web-site-and-domain-hosting-services.com, and are using it for self promo.

I would agree. I absolutally hate scum-bag host like that. This is what the industry is polluted with now. Shi**y host who have to lie to get business. I hope they fail. And they will.

What will the owner do next? Create a 10 best looking guys list and write his own review? What a tool.

Business is business, i bet they get a hell of a lot of signups from that.

-Brendan

Yes they do. That's how I found out about it. Some people were complaining about FeaturePrice and it came to light that serveral ended up there because of that domain.

But, I certainly don't agree with you that "business is business."

There are scumbags that do business. Then there are professionals that build business.

Originally posted by HRBrendan
Business is business, i bet they get a hell of a lot of signups from that.

-Brendan

You would say that. Youhave a similar project.

http://www.webhostzone.com/home/index.php

If you feel lying to the public is OK and is part of business, that is your deal. My understanding of business doesn't involve creating fake review sites, then placing a review written by the owner on the site, then advertising it as a "real" review site. Imagine Consumer Reports writing a review on top magazines and placing themselves #1.

That one's pretty funny... all 5's and check out the times of the reviews!

I was trying to figure who owns that site as well, and where these votes supposedly come from.

Interesting stuff you pulled up.

You would say that. Youhave a similar project.

Hmm... disturbing. This wouldn't be tolerated in any other industry - or would it? In the larger market place it is a bit more difficult to dig this sort of thing up.

My impression of HostRocket has just been thrown in the same sewer of my impression of FeaturePrice.

If deception is the way you have to get customers you must be pretty bad at hosting.

UmBilly, did you notice see eye host is there (just to add credibility)?
This is embarrassingly funny.
If you click on see ratings, you get this 'default' page.
Recent Ratings:
There haven't been any ratings submitted for this company. Here are the most recent ratings submitted for other companies in our records.

and all the ratings and quotes are for HR!
One quote says: "best hosting i've ever had in 15 years"
(how long has he been on the intenet? Since the days of the 200 MB HD?)
I smell a some one taking advantage of google.

Remember how just recently movie studios were taken to task for writing their own glowing movie reviews and assigning them to a ficticious writer and non-existent publication?

Originally posted by ATST
...
One quote says: "best hosting i've ever had in 15 years"
(how long has he been on the intenet? Since the days of the 200 MB HD?)
I smell a some one taking advantage of google.


That's funny... I didn't catch that. Mosiac was released in what 1992? Edit - nope it was Feb 1993 - alpha release!


1990 October
Tim starts work on a hypertext GUI browser+editor using the NeXTStep development environment. He makes up "WorldWideWeb" as a name for the program. (See the first browser screenshot) "World Wide Web" as a name for the project (over Information Mesh, Mine of Information, and Information Mine).


I've must of fallen asleep or something! What year is it now??

In HRs and Brendons defense, this site is not live yet (even though I am sure it is being spidered.). I think they are still working on it, but still.... I can see it now. 1000 host rating sites with the #1 rating going to the host owner. Then popuate the rest with crap host. You would look pretty damn good. :D

Remember how just recently movie studios were taken to task for writing their own glowing movie reviews and assigning them to a fictitious writer and non-existent publication?

:D Yep, that was funny. I lend most movie reviews as much credence as I do hosting directories.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
. . . . . . . site is not live yet. . . . . .UmBillyCord:smash:

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
UmBillyCord:smash:

I don't get it. Post your reply here, not PM. ;)

I was looking at webhost last week and came across this site... I was fooled. I did not pick any on the list but I did go down the list and click on each one....

This board is great to lerk and get valuable info... I'll del "10 best" them from my webhosting favorites folder now...

Another funny thing. Role over the other host links. They are all affilaite links. The only one that isn't, is FP. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


I don't get it. Post your reply here, not PM. ;) Not warning me that Brandans' site wasn't "live" yet.

Nearly made me go back and edit my post.


Nearly.

Well, it is if you think about it. Plus I have seen others sites referring to it. So no fear. :)

The site you're referring to is not live, and gets little to no traffic above that which already went to the domain name which we purchased. The site is as live looking as we can get it becase if we don't keep it in such a state it will lose its somewhat decent rankings in search engines while we get it ready, thus kind of defeating the purpose of the thing all together.

Yes the banners are affiliate links.. wahoo, its not free to drive traffic to the site which we have done 2x in spurts to try to get a handle on how people navigate the site etc, and the domain name and site design wern't free either. If anyone has a problem with me listing their affiliate program on our site, i'll gladly take it off. The top ten listing's are not affiliate links, they're just links.

I have stated before on this very forum that the reviews on that site are not real. I am not at liberty to post filler reviews of other webhosts to use as filler content so I post ones about my own.

I would agree that posting fake reviews about ones own company on a live site would be bad, however that is not what we're doing and not what we're going to be doing in the future. Most likely we will end up not have a review section at all because I really dont want to deal with the headaches involved with listening to people accuse me of whatever im already being accused of doing before ive even launched the site.

What I am doing is creating a webhost directory service to serve as an advertising medium for my own companies to cut our advertising costs. If you have a problem with that then I'm sorry, but buying advertising on another directory is not any different then buying it on your own.

-Brendan

well said Brendan :)

Jay Leno owns WHT.

Originally posted by vigor
Jay Leno owns WHT.

Yep

The site you're referring to is not live, and gets little to no traffic above that which already went to the domain name which we purchased. The site is as live looking as we can get it becase if we don't keep it in such a state it will lose its somewhat decent rankings in search engines while we get it ready

If people are coming to the site from 'past' search engine placement as you stated, then it is live. Sorry, but the site is online, there for live. So even if one person comes there and sees false reviews and they are not told they were false, then they were lied too. Doesn't matter what spin you place.


I have stated before on this very forum that the reviews on that site are not real. I am not at liberty to post filler reviews of other webhosts to use as filler content so I post ones about my own.

Yes, I see. And the abilty to place false host names didn't cross your mind?

Most likely we will end up not have a review section at all because I really dont want to deal with the headaches involved with listening to people accuse me of whatever im already being accused of doing before ive even launched the site

Umm.. no one is accusing you of anything. Simply pointing out that your defense of a site that lies about reviews being business is wrong. Of course you would say that. What you have out on the Internet now, is doing the a similar thing.

What I am doing is creating a webhost directory service to serve as an advertising medium for my own companies to cut our advertising costs. If you have a problem with that then I'm sorry, but buying advertising on another directory is not any different then buying it on your own.

Wrong. It is. If you create a directory that tricks people into thinking you have an independant site with independant reviews, but are removing bad post about your companies or having influence on how other competitors are looked at by leaving the bad reviews, then that is wrong. Ask Hostindex and Tophost about that.


In any event, I hope the site is a success. I agree it is a great way to bring in additional revenue to help with advertising elsewhere.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


Wrong. It is. If you create a directory that tricks people into thinking you have an independant site with independant reviews, but are removing bad post about your companies or having influence on how other competitors are looked at by leaving the bad reviews, then that is wrong. Ask Hostindex and Tophost about that.



The site is not going to be a review site, its going to be a directory site.

-Brendan

It's just another way to earn money and advertise.

I would consider that site live... most definately.

However I dont think there is anything wrong with creating a directory/webmaster related site to advertise your own host... I think lots of us do it, I do :-)..

I dont agree with adding your own reviews though.. give yourself a slap on the hand.

Originally posted by HRBrendan
The site you're referring to is not live, and gets little to no traffic

You really do think WHT users are just a bunch of idiots don't you?

I bet you have those files in public_html, or htdocs, and if I;m not mistaken, that is live, or is my entire notion of public files on a public webserver serving a public port just entirely wrong.

In my opinion, if you are running a resource site for web hosting then you can't be credible if you also run a hosting biz at the same time - even if the intent is good.

But - credible or not - joe public doesn't know the difference and given that there isn't an ounce of any kind of regulation it becomes a free for all.

I guess at the end of the day it doesn't really matter - 95% of all the "resource" sites get next to no traffic anyway and they never will. They survive because there are just so many hosts & many of them are ready & willing to part with their cash - and never track any spending so have no clue if it was valuable or not.

Why would you say that I think WHT users are idiots? Honestly, the site has absolutly nothing to do with WHT users other than the occasional guy who wants to stir up trouble by making something into more than it is.

The site is not live. Alot of the links don't work and its not advertised anywhere. If I had an under construction page up it would still be in the public_html folder too, would that be live? I have the site the way it is, because if I didn't I would lose my search engine rankings which is the reason I bought the site to begin with. Its a project thats basically on hold right now, and probably will be for at least another month or so. What is the big deal that this is worth discussing. Why don't you at least wait until we are done with the site and see what we do with it before you start flipping out about it.

-Brendan

Ah, be careful - if any customer feels they were led to part with money under false pretences, then there is a case to be made for litigation, yes?

Simply a general point for a general audience.

Originally posted by HRBrendan
. . . . .The site is not live. Alot of the links don't work and its not advertised anywhere. If I had an under construction page up it would still be in the public_html folder too, would that be live? I have the site the way it is, because if I didn't I would lose my search engine rankings which is the reason I bought the site to begin with. . . . . .Not to keep beating this horse but, since you mention it, how do you get these "search engine rankings" with a site that is not live?
Maybe we just have different definitions of "live site." But, I just don't think that sites that *aren't* live get spidered.

I bought a domain name for a decent amount of money because of its ranking in search engines, for a project that was originally going to be done all at once fairly quickly. I am not about to throw that money away by letting it drop out of the search engines. PLEASE do accept my DEEPEST apologies if this somehow freaking affects you and is loosing you sleep at night.

-Brendan

Your spin is what I detest, but then you know that =)

I eat spin

I'm not spinning anything! I have nothing to spin! If that site got enough traffic for it to be a concern of anyones, it would become mine first right? After all I did pay for it etc. I wouldn't leave it there with links to nowhere on it if it was something worth me worrying about, let alone you guys. I bet half that sites traffic comes from you guys linking to it off this forum telling everyone how outragous its existance is.

-Brendan

Originally posted by HRBrendan
I bet half that sites traffic comes from you guys linking to it off this forum telling everyone how outragous its existance is.


So you're gambling with your spin.

Let's see, you have stat programs, why don't cron em publicly, or post a screen here.

Instead of spinning this as a "It's nothing really, the stats are caused by people questioning about it, etc etc etc", back up what you just said with actual imperical data.

Not that I should have to post this crap to get you guys to lay off, heres the info for October:


Monthly Statistics for October 2002

Total Hits 250363
Total Files 205987
Total Pages 8093
Total Visits 4532
Total KBytes 768568

Total Unique Sites 4084
Total Unique URLs 88
Total Unique Referrers 435
Total Unique Usernames 3
Total Unique User Agents 671

. Avg Max

Hits per Hour 336 3471
Hits per Day 8076 29886
Files per Day 6644 27063
Pages per Day 261 665
Visits per Day 146 440
KBytes per Day 24793 160873


-Brendan