Results 1 to 16 of 16
Thread: Standardized Hosting Reviews
-
02-29-2004, 10:38 AM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Standardized Hosting Reviews
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.
-
02-29-2004, 11:19 AM #2Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- Reading, England
- Posts
- 4,240
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.Steve
-
02-29-2004, 11:31 AM #3Eternal Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2000
- Location
- Tasmania, Australia.
- Posts
- 3,590
The price would be optional? As some might not want to disclose that, but otherwise it's a good suggestion.
-
02-29-2004, 11:36 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Kirkland, WA
- Posts
- 4,448
I think website should be part of the form too
-
03-04-2004, 03:12 PM #5Build It Better!
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 5,448
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>Last edited by Mark_YH; 03-04-2004 at 03:17 PM.
-
03-04-2004, 03:31 PM #6Web Developer
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Connecticut
- Posts
- 5,460
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>
-
03-04-2004, 03:41 PM #7Build It Better!
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 5,448
Have you ever heard of a Proxy? What about dial up that changes IP? IP validation is practically useless...
-
03-04-2004, 03:56 PM #8Web Developer
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Connecticut
- Posts
- 5,460
Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Have you ever heard of a Proxy? What about dial up that changes IP? IP validation is practically useless...
-
03-04-2004, 05:00 PM #9Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
I'm not suggesting it would eliminate scams Watcher, I just think it would be easier to filter out the BS.
-
03-04-2004, 05:23 PM #10WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- USA/Croatia
- Posts
- 110
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.
Freckle Face
http://frecklefacehosting.com
-
03-04-2004, 06:03 PM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Posts
- 40
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?
-
03-04-2004, 06:21 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 4,305
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.
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.www.square-network.com www.squarenetwork.com
Now available in regular and dehyphenated.
May 2003 Member of the Month
Useless Community Liason Ever Since.
-
03-04-2004, 06:27 PM #13WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- USA/Croatia
- Posts
- 110
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.Freckle Face
http://frecklefacehosting.com
-
03-04-2004, 06:43 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Nova Scotia, Canada
- Posts
- 4,128
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.
SimonLast edited by IHSL; 03-04-2004 at 06:47 PM.
-
03-04-2004, 07:13 PM #15Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
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.
-
04-15-2004, 07:50 PM #16WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 122
I just wanted to bring this back to the top (figured it would be better then starting a new thread). I have been looking for a host and its very time consuming doing a search on each one I am considering. Also, most of the threads are not relevent. It would be much easier for people new to the site to use.
I agree with AussieHosts about the price being optional.
Watcher_TVI: they could just do that now in the forums anyways, not that much of a difference if you ask me. The posts could still me moderated and the IP's checked. If they are using a proxy or are on dial-up, then it really would be no different then right now in the forums.
IHSL: why should people include their URL's? I would also leave that as optional. The only reason I could think of for it is to help prevent bogus reviews. Maybe have it filled out but have a check box if they want it shown or not. That way mods could check to make sure its a real site and not a bogus review.