Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: host blacklist

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    158

    host blacklist

    has anyone tried this? I was thinking that wht might wanna start one.... we could have a blacklist & a redlist.... blacklists for the hosts that rip, have repeated problems, etc, redlists for the ones that are sleasy, have some problems, etc.

    maybe a mod to vBulletin...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    770
    While it would be a good idea, the person that would run it would have to make sure that people don't just blacklist hosts for the sake of spite and/or lowering competition. It'd be all too easy to get a host on such a list just by leaving a trite comment like "i used xyz.com and they were bad". And if the person hit the "submit" button six or seven times, that host would look really bad on the surface. While a further read of the reviews would reveal the nature of the blacklisting and why it's so high, a lot of people just aren't going to do that.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is there would have to be a moderation step in the forum so that the messages would be reviewed first. And quite frankly, I think the moderators (on here) at least do enough and have enough on their plates without having to add anything else to it.

    This isn't a bad idea by the way, on the contrary I feel it's a very good one; it's just an idea that would probably take more work than a moderator on here should be reasonably expected to handle (especially a certain bird who's fast approaching the 5-digit post mark. )
    Is Canada the best? Noo Doot Aboot It!
    "And on the eighth...day...God...created...Mankind. WHY WAS HE HAVING SUCH A BAD DAY?" -- Mick Foley

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,953
    Your thinking in the wrong direction. Here is the problem, a black list is free advertising, belive it or not, some people may acually signup with the host. Why not make a list of hosts that generally get good marks.
    Chicago Electronic Cigarettes: Tobacco Free, Smoke Free. 3 E-Cig Models, 11 flavors, and accessories.
    http://www.chicago-ecigs.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    91
    blacklists for the hosts that rip, have repeated problems, etc, redlists for the ones that are sleasy, have some problems, etc.
    Sometimes its not always the hosts problem when something isnt right,i dont think it would work because your letting the customer make the host look bad when your dont actually know if the customer is really telling the truth.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Australia & The Pacific
    Posts
    75

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    158
    i was thinking more along the lines of an impartial committee for it... dunno who's exactly impartial but still knows a lot, but i'd bet a good number of the people here are. i don't think putting people on blacklists would give them free advertising.. it'd get their name out, but really, would you buy from someone that had their name on a blacklist?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,003
    Originally posted by Skie
    would you buy from someone that had their name on a blacklist?
    Believe it or not, there are such idiots.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,779
    I like something along the lines of Hosting Assured, I think a BBB type of place run by 3rd party where customers can go and lodge complaints and the host can answer those complaints. Puts it all out there for the world to see, if a host is bad he gets a neg rating good he gets a positive rating.

    That way at least a customer can see for themselves what they are buying.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    770
    Originally posted by FHJim
    How about www.yourhostsucks.com
    Was it intentional or not that this site actually exists?

    And I personally might buy from someone who was on a blacklist. This is going to sound confusing but before I judged myself, I would consider the reason they got put on the list (i.e. who wrote the complaint that got them there.) As people on here have pointed out, it might not always be the host's fault that they're there. It might be some angry jerk leaving half of a sentence as a post on the board that wasn't properly moderated. I'm not going to judge xyzhost.com strictly on the basis of them being on a board like this because someone put something to the extent of "donot use xyzhost.com they suck my sight was dwon all the tim".

    Your idea might work better if you took a combination of "forum" and "panel" approach. You could still have the forum, but combine it with about 5 or 10 people that do have some knowledge of the industry and who can be fair and objective. And to be truly impartial, at least allow the host the opportunity to defend him/herself. A lot of host problems, much like problems in life, are merely a case of misunderstanding between the client and host.
    Is Canada the best? Noo Doot Aboot It!
    "And on the eighth...day...God...created...Mankind. WHY WAS HE HAVING SUCH A BAD DAY?" -- Mick Foley

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Orlando Florida
    Posts
    538
    You know what I disagree with the blacklist. At one time i thought of doing this myself then realized that if i were a hosting company how i would feel if somoene just had some bad luck with me and went on and blamed cedwardshost.com (not my real hosting name lol) screwed us over blah blah blah and then chase away potential customers. In the hosting biz every other person that runs servers would know this...there are things that come up that are beyond the host's control and we cant help and the sad thing is the customers dont beleive it. Also some ppl get upset if you take the server down for 3 minutes to reboot at like 4am in the morning onlty once a month for security patches and updates. Its really beyond being fair i believe. I think having a site about the great host would work better because then there wont be so much flaming. Also what may make a place good for one site may not be so great for another. Take for exsample me...i have a site thats a full online game that needs a win2k server. Well i stick it on some and it does really bad. i stick it on another (no name willl be said but im sure the host will read this thread) and it does excellelant...but then again turn around and take a site that doesnt require all that my game did and stick it on that same previous host and it would run perfect with no problems on either server. Well see just because of my complexity of my site i just blacklisted someone that is a good host just not powerful enough for me. See my point or am i just mumbling on about nothing lol because i do that often lol!

  11. #11
    It's a bad idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is potential legal liability should the list include false, unverified, or misleading information.
    I thank my Lord for all His wonderful blessings.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Orlando Florida
    Posts
    538
    Originally posted by hostpath.com
    It's a bad idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is potential legal liability should the list include false, unverified, or misleading information.
    Oh yeah we saw what happened recently with that one thread about that one place. It coudl come out bad if you talk trash about a company that may aucally be good. Perfect reason there.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    11,059
    Originally posted by Skie
    ...it'd get their name out, but really, would you buy from someone that had their name on a blacklist?
    Old adage: "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name properly..." or something to that effect. Strangely enough, it is in fact tantamout to publicity.

    Honestly, I would never want to even think about administering a blacklist site. It would be sooooooooo susceptible to abuse. There are alot of vindictive and/or stupid and/or unreasonable people out there that would get great satisfaction in smearing a host's reputation, whether it was deserved or not. How in the world would you verify/substantiate any claims against a host? Not to mention the potential libel suits (as touched on by hostpath.com).

    A real hornet's nest, if you ask me...

    Vito
    DemoDemo.com - Flash tutorials since 2002
    DemoWolf.com - 5,300+ Flash tutorials for hosting companies, incl. Voice tutorials

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,799
    yeah, the oposite would be better, but thats been done.
    I went to a site that claimed to list the best hosts and ended up with (sounds like) "see eye host" which most of us know by now sucks royally.
    It was the worst host I ever had. I could have picked a better host by putting names of hosts on the wall, and throwing a dart at one.
    DANG DANG! DANG!!
    I know ***** ripped off everybody else, but they wouldn't do it to me.
    "When you use bottom feed for bait, you are only going to catch bottom feeders."
    "You do what you are, and you are what you do."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    978
    I could have picked a better host by putting names of hosts on the wall, and throwing a dart at one.
    Just don't make a RackNine voodoo doll and I'll be happy, thanks

    Unfortunately either side of this issue is too easily manipulated. Bad host lists are too easy to get on, and good host lists are too easily bought-out or have fixed rankings. This isn't a bad thing though, it means as the customer you'll have to spend a little time understanding the requirements and business practices of a web host before signing up and those with a squeaky clean record will shine through.

    Sincerely,

    -Matt

  16. #16
    yes... i agree with racknine... this thing sounds like a bad idea either way

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    11,059
    Originally posted by RackNine
    ... as the customer you'll have to spend a little time understanding the requirements and business practices of a web host before signing up and those with a squeaky clean record will shine through.
    Ah, but there's the rub. Exactly how will that customer find out what a particular host is really like? They likely will go by what they read in one of these blacklist sites. Not everyone out there is as diligent and thorough as we would like them to be. A top-notch host that is unfairly dragged through the mud will end up losing a good number of potentially new customers because of comments made in the site.

    Any way you look at it, it will end up being unfair to someone .

    Vito
    DemoDemo.com - Flash tutorials since 2002
    DemoWolf.com - 5,300+ Flash tutorials for hosting companies, incl. Voice tutorials

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Orlando Florida
    Posts
    538
    I agree fully with vito on this. You will cause someone to lose in the long run but also one of the biggest is the legal reasons too.

    Bad Idea fully.

  19. #19
    Simple, just host it outside the US and hide your name. You can't be sued if they can't find you.

  20. #20
    Originally posted by bambenek
    Simple, just host it outside the US and hide your name. You can't be sued if they can't find you.
    that doesnt sound like good business pratice to me

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    158
    i think some of you are missing the idea...

    it wouldn't be a public blacklist. it would be a privately edited list that people would be able to submit to, but would have to go through an "approval board" before they would be put on, and it would have to be for significant things, such as serious fraud, ripping templates, etc. also, you'd have to have several different people complain about the same host to stick it up- not just based on one person's comments or opinions.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    770
    That idea makes more sense the way you worded it, Skie. Although I would suggest one person's comments or opinions could be included in such a case if said person made a convincing enough argument about the host and it could be verified (i.e. extreme downtimes, little to no support response, things like that.) In a lot of cases, the so-called "ripoff" hosting companies are smaller companies without a large customer base and thus, one customer complaining could have a lot more of an effect on them than say ten or fifteen from a larger host.

    Let's use the following fictional (I hope, since I'm just making stuff up ) example:

    Scenario A: 1 customer complains about xyzhosting.com after dropping them as a host. xyzhosting.com has 40 customers in total. Because 1 complained and his/her arguments were valid and well-thought out, xyzhosting.com loses 10 possible future customers and 10 current customers. So instead of having 49 customers, xyzhosting has 29 paying customers. This works out to 41% fewer customers, which can have a major impact on a company that small.

    Scenario B: 10 customers complain about abchosting.com after dropping them as a host. abchosting has 40,000 customers in total. The 10 complainers cost abchosting.com 100 current customers and 100 possible future customers. So instead of having 40,090 future customers, poor abchosting.com has 39,890 future customers. While 200 customers for a host is a lot of money to lose, the percentage lost is only 0.5%, which really isn't going to hurt a company of that size that much.

    So I think you should include, on a case-by-case basis, the complaints of one individual if they are valid ones.
    Is Canada the best? Noo Doot Aboot It!
    "And on the eighth...day...God...created...Mankind. WHY WAS HE HAVING SUCH A BAD DAY?" -- Mick Foley

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •