Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : WHT Announcements, Feedback and Questions : Standardized Hosting Reviews

[blue27]

What would you think about requiring users to fill out a standardized form to be submitted for a hosting review?

The form could include:

Host Name
How long have you been with host
Type of plan and price paid
Service response time
Server speed and uptime
Positives about the host
Negatives about the host

Epolady has posted a well formatted review in the main forum. It is the kind of review that actually means something and it is well formatted. All reviews should be like this.

[Vortex-Steve]

I think it's a good idea.

How about the clients domain as well... as prove of an account and also people can use it as a speed test.

[AussieHosts]

The price would be optional? As some might not want to disclose that, but otherwise it's a good suggestion.

[snickn]

I think website should be part of the form too

[Mark_TVI]

Just one question;
What is to stop a shady individual running a hosting company from registering multiple accounts here, using domains they have hosted on their server and posting glowing reports?

While I agree that posting hosting reviews could use some guidelines, I also can recall how many frauds have been discovered by members questioning some of these reviews.

Another major point to consider is all the additional work that would be required by the Mods to verify the information submitted in the form...

<edited to add another thought>
I just read a post that bring up another issue. If members are not able to respond to reviews what about the negative reviews from someone like a Spammer you threw off your server?
</edit>

[Dan L]

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Just one question;
What is to stop a shady individual running a hosting company from registering multiple accounts here, using domains they have hosted on their server and posting glowing reports?

While I agree that posting hosting reviews could use some guidelines, I also can recall how many frauds have been discovered by members questioning some of these reviews.

Another major point to consider is all the additional work that would be required by the Mods to verify the information submitted in the form...

<edited to add another thought>
I just read a post that bring up another issue. If members are not able to respond to reviews what about the negative reviews from someone like a Spammer you threw off your server?
</edit>

Multiple accounts could be checked with atleast a basic IP comparison on signup..

[Mark_TVI]

Have you ever heard of a Proxy? What about dial up that changes IP? IP validation is practically useless...

[Dan L]

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Have you ever heard of a Proxy? What about dial up that changes IP? IP validation is practically useless...

Completely forgot about that.. well, I guess the 'How Long You've Been With a Host' along with your WHOIS info, and it's the best shot you have. :\

[blue27]

I'm not suggesting it would eliminate scams Watcher, I just think it would be easier to filter out the BS.

[Freckled]

I think this would be a great idea as well but how do you prevent the posts from being bogus, in other words hosts pretending to be clients and posting bad reviews about other hosts? Also people that have only used a host for a month and really don't know how good the service really is.

[prattboy13]

What's to prevent bogus host reviews now, though? Not a whole lot aside from members that are on the ball in spotting frauds.

I'm not too keen on the idea of a specific hosting review format... that's probably all information that should be included, though, blue27. Perhaps a sticky could be made stating that those would be good things to include in a hosting review?

[Coach]

Originally posted by prattboy13
What's to prevent bogus host reviews now, though? Not a whole lot aside from members that are on the ball in spotting frauds.

That is exactly right.

I like the idea. At least a sticky or something in the rules. If you are going to post something positive or negative, details should be required.

[Freckled]

Very true, I enjoy reading some of the threads where they get caught doing it too. And I will say many do get caught and that is a good thing.

I think a sticky is a good idea, or maybe they could incorporate in the rules that if you post a host review it has to have at least that information in it or it gets deleted.

[IHSL]

I like the idea, blue..

I also feel that a sticky, with a few extra pointers would go over well:

[When posting a review]
1: Remember to include your URL
2: Do not take offence if someone asks you your URL, providing you ignored #1, and take it as an opener to insult others.
3: Reviews should stick to the actual review of one comnpany. Do not accompany it with an onslaught about other companies.. make a seperate post for that, and it will be discussed on it's own merits.

There was a particular review recently, that didn't abide by any of those, and he, by default, made his review sound like it was pre-written by his provider. He (the topic starter) decided that the best course of action when reviewing, would be to insult other company.. this is always a bad move, in my opinion, unless backed up.

I also think some regeulations need to be brought in, on users replying to reviews/topics requesting company-specific info. All too often, a user see's this as an opportunity to say something completely unrelated, like "have a look at webhostratings.com" just to get their signature into the topic. This simply has to stop. Whilst most reputable companies, and users, will have the decency not to hijack, or attempt to spam a thread, just to get their signature seen, there is an elite few who's only purpose on WHT, is the afore mentioned tactic.

Simon

[blue27]

There is a lot of schilling going on Simon.
The reason I think this would be a good idea is that a formated, well presented review that doesn't sound like a commercial for the hosting company will have a lot better chance of people taking it seriously.
Unfortunately, because of the number of scammers on the forum some good host reviews fall through the cracks. I think a structured approach would benifit the real hosts/reviewers.