Anybody use hostsearch.com?

I recently sent several reviews (not all bad) to HOSTSEARCH.COM on the webhost I recently transferred my domain to. I signed up mainly because of excellent reviews (10's) posted by other users on HOSTSEARCH.COM... Little did I know.

My reviews are censored and never got posted on their rating system. I sent it couple of times thinking that the first one got lost. But it never showed. I ask about it on their forum, others replied suspecting that HOSTSEARCH.COM show favoritism to their advertisers. Others mentioned that this type of thing happened before on HOSTSEARCH.COM. I checked the forum again and my thread was deleted! So... beware of HOSTSEARCH.COM's rating system. It doesn't give you a honest poll of what the real world thinks.

It's far too common that a disgruntled employee, TOS'd customer or even a host's competition will place false bad reviews.

HostSearch.com will review a comment if a host protests it. If there is no proof to back up a bad comment - HostSearch.com will pull it.

We recently cancelled a person's account for spamming. He posted the worst review on us that you can imagine. Since we have a link to HostSearch on our main page, I wrote to them to explain the situation. They reviewed the facts and pulled the review.

We do NOT have paid advertising with them.

I believe HostSearch does a pretty good job. They know that their site could be used maliciously and, I think, they understand that some reviews should be pulled.


--Tina

FYI - as I mentioned, my reviews was not all bad. Rating of 6 (10 being the best). If HOSTSEARCH.COM can censored rating of 6 - that means they pull all the ratings of 1-5? On my particular web host (without mentioning the name). the ratings are all 10s (few 9s) showing on their reviews- out of 119 posts, don't you think that's a bit suspicious? A Perfect webhost?? I signed up because of these high 10 ratings. Thinking that they're "perfect". Then I had problems right after I singed up. The problems were solved. But not a perfect 10 webhost. I'm not totally unhappy, I was just "surprised to find that a "10" rated company had these problems. A perfect 10 rating indicates to me that the webhost NEVER has any problems, no downtime, etc.

Don't you think the consumer deserves a better system? The truth? If HOSTSEARCH.COM going to put up a rating system, they should leave all the reviews, not just the good ones.

I don't see a webhost directory existing for any other reason than to make money. Obviously, the money must come from somewhere. What happens when bad posts start flooding in is they'd probably lose that advertiser. It's just a business practice and appears to be seen as easy money by those starting them. They won't be around long if they're honest with everything. If i'm looking for a host i'll look in a forum such as this one, you get a far more diverse range of opinions that are much less likely to be influenced by the flow of cash.

Without knowing the details of your review - I can't say.

We'll get complaints occasionally from users who believe we haven't setup their accounts correctly. Only to find out that they never updated DNS to point to their new account, or they've uploaded their webpage to the wrong directory, etc.

My point being. You may very well believe that your hosting company had problems. The customers I mentioned believed that it was our fault as well. About 99% of the time, we can explain the situation to the customer....occassionally they just don't understand that they're doing something wrong.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that there is another side to all of this.

I think the real solution would be to allow hosting companies the chance to post ONE reply to each review. Then we could all see how they handle things.


--Tina

Understand. I operate a service type company myself. My problem was definatelly the fault of the webhost. The owner even admited to me that the particular system was down. It's working now... I hope it will work for a long time. Maybe it's bad luck that a few days after I signed up I have problems...

A rating of 6/10 is not consider a bad review?

Personally, I wouldn't be happy with a 6....however, I'm an overachiever and will probably die young from stress. haha. :-)

--Tina (will settle for nothing less than an 11!!!)

There are many web sites that are eager to help someone lodge a complaint or negative comment about a business (in all industries, not just hosting). Sadly, few if any of these sites give the company any facility to comment or rebutt the complaint. Worse still, many of these sites feel it must be true if someone posts it and it's not there problem if their service is used to abuse or harass a company.

Yes, but if those sites can't prove that what the poster said is true - they could get sued for libel.


--Tina

Host Rating sites always have seemed to have a big conflict of interest. Why would a sponsor pay for advertising on a site if there was bad press on them? Ironically, these sites are a major point of contact to reach the potential customer.

I'm a big fan of forums like this one to learn about hosts. You have to take everything said with a grain of salt but you do get pretty much the unfiltered opinions. The good ones keep showing up if read back for awhile.

Originally posted by yungi
So... beware of HOSTSEARCH.COM's rating system. It doesn't give you a honest poll of what the real world thinks.

Don't you think the consumer deserves a better system? The truth? If HOSTSEARCH.COM going to put up a rating system, they should leave all the reviews, not just the good ones.

Not necessarily. Any rating and review system that doesn't contain information about the reviewer is inherently flawed.

Some individuals are no more reliable than some of the poor hosts.

People post for all sorts of reasons, from impatience to a desire to libel a company to a genuine desire to inform others.

Judge each review accordingly.

Originally posted by jiminsd
Host Rating sites always have seemed to have a big conflict of interest. Why would a sponsor pay for advertising on a site if there was bad press on them?


Maybe a hosting index that did not allow their advertisers to be rated?

I would see that as a benefit to all.

--Tina

HostSearch contacted me in January of this year regarding my comments about them on my hosting pages (last link in my signature), and this is what they said:

HostSearch do filters bad words, not negative reviews. Sometimes angry
people post negative reviews with bad words. That may cause you think we
filter the posts. HostSearch accept advertising from every company. BTW,
you may want to take a look at our site. I think we have the reviews of
those two companies you mentioned.

We are the first web host directory site that offer the review section. This
idea came from the review section at Amazon.com. Many web hosts don't like
it including our advertisers, but we do this to give the info to our
readers. We are also a customer of web hosts. We changed host many times
and we are finding the way to help visitors find a good host. HostSearch
NEVER have the stupid top 25 hosts (or similar) section. Web Host List was
the one who did this and I agreed with you that it's the paid listing. FYI,
CNET bought webhostlist for $29 million in 1999.

Speaking from my experience, there isn't a perfect host in real life.
There's just an OK host. The problem right now is that there are so many
irresponsible web hosts. Buyers have to be aware of this and careful when
choosing web hosts.

I hope that you will look at us in more positive way and correct what you
mentioned about us on your web site. Thank you for your time.

While I feel some sympathy for honest hosts who get undeserved complaints posted by former customers, by far the worst damage is done by dishonest and incompetetent hosts screwing customers. In any case, most of those review sites aren't worth sh!t.

Those reviews sites are a joke. I sent a review a long time ago, a realy bad one before I was even in this business, and the post never went up, I emailed them and they never replied.

These review sites are like the credit reporting services, they are very unreliable and not regulated.

Originally posted by AffordableHost
Yes, but if those sites can't prove that what the poster said is true - they could get sued for libel.

Not necessarily, and the chances of winning would be slim. Proving libel is more complicated than "is it true or not?", especially when a site includes third party reports. Even in the U.S., in some states, facetious claims will be thrown out before they get to trial rather than waste the court's time further.

Yeah, when you're being sued...even if you're in the right...it costs $$$ to hire an attorney to protect your interests. I'm sure that's something HostSearch doesn't want to deal with.

True. The game is definitely stacked in favor of the attorneys and even a defense can be costly.

That's why I think we should adopt a principle from the Canadian system. The loser pays both attorneys. We would have far less contingency cases and frivolous lawsuits if they were based on the merits of a case and not an attempt to hit a jackpot.

Originally posted by AffordableHost

We'll get complaints occasionally from users who believe we haven't setup their accounts correctly. Only to find out that they never updated DNS to point to their new account, or they've uploaded their webpage to the wrong directory, etc.

I have to agree with Tina. Even though we always try to help our customers change their DNS by sending them detailed instructions, we get an unbelievable high percentage of people who think that we are at fault because their domain does not work after a week. They always blame us for it and it is pretty obvious that they didn't even read the instructions because they did not change their DNS.

Same thing with the directories. Many customers upload their files to the wrong directory and the blame us for it even though we send them instructions via email, point them to a get started page and more.

These reviews suck! They are not beneficial to anyone. After all, these sites are only there to make money not to help the hosting community. ;)

Originally posted by Duster
True. The game is definitely stacked in favor of the attorneys and even a defense can be costly.

That's why I think we should adopt a principle from the Canadian system. The loser pays both attorneys. We would have far less contingency cases and frivolous lawsuits if they were based on the merits of a case and not an attempt to hit a jackpot.


You know, that's so obviously logical...I don't understand why we don't already do that!

--Tina

Originally posted by bert


I have to agree with Tina. Even though we always try to help our customers change their DNS by sending them detailed instructions, we get an unbelievable high percentage of people who think that we are at fault because their domain does not work after a week. They always blame us for it and it is pretty obvious that they didn't even read the instructions because they did not change their DNS.

Same thing with the directories. Many customers upload their files to the wrong directory and the blame us for it even though we send them instructions via email, point them to a get started page and more.

We send a "welcome email" with instructions - plus have custom instruction pages for each of our servers (with server-specific instructions - absolute paths, etc.) AND we have extensive FAQs and troubleshooting pages.

In spite of all of this - I just refunded a customer because he was absolutely sure we killed his website.

I spent a week trying to get him to update DNS. I even went so far as to putting all of the information through NSI for him...all he had to do is reply to the authorization email (yes, it went to his correct email address).

Now, this guy is off to the next host...and I'm sure he'll tell them how horrible we are. :P"

It's things like this that drive me insane.

--Tina

Originally posted by AffordableHost
You know, that's so obviously logical...I don't understand why we don't already do that!

--Tina
If you think aobut it, Tina, you'll realize you've answered your own question. It's because it's logical that we haven't done it.

Who makes most laws? Legislators, many of who are or were attorneys.

Who are the only losers in every case if such a law were passed in the U.S.? Attorneys.

They wouldn't be able to bet their time, filing fees and court costs against 40% -50% or so of a settlement or judgment in their client's favor.

Right now, attorneys win all the time, whether the case is win, draw or lose (or a settlement is made). Attorneys have little or nothing to lose by taking on a frivolous law suit with either the remotest chance of winning or embarrasing the plaintiff.

It's whether they win or lose that matters, not how they play the came, entirely opposite what many of us are taught.

We need to change the rules, take away their guaranteed victories (regardless of the outcome), and give them a stake in losing as well as winning. We would all benefit from such a change.

Isn't that absurd?

We had a customer who ordered hosting on Tuesday of last week, in just 15 minutes he had all the setup instructions in the world available to him. He called us on Wednesday to cancel the service. When I asked why, he said that his domain wasn't working. I checked with InterNIC and it was already changed in their database. I told him that the DNS record for his domain was already changed in InterNIC's database and that the new information needed to "propagate" and that the propagation usually just takes a few hours after InterNIC shows the change. Well, he insisted he wanted a refund because he had already signed up with another host. He was a real jerk by the way. He probably ended up canceling service with the next host as well.

That is the way it goes with 50% of our customers. :mad:

Tina,

FYI: your domain link in your signature is not linking to your site but to http://webhostingtalk.com/<b>http://www.AffordableHost.com</b> By the time somebody (webhostingtalk) take notice to repair the error, I guess you should remove th bold.

side note to moderators: Hope you will get this error notice.