Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Host Seal of Approval

[eviltechie]

I saw someone mention something like this in a thread awhile ago. And, I thought it was a good idea.

The basic concept would be having a set of standards that if followed would allow a web host to display a special seal on their site. Thus giving clients an instant way to identify hosts that follow accepted standards and practices, making them feel more secure, and hopefully increasing business for hosts displaying the seal.

If something like this were to be done...

...as a host, would you use it?

...as a hosting consumer, would it make you more confident in your buying decision?

...what standards and practices would you want to be criteria for displaying the seal?

[DATARTIM]

Webhostingstuff already do that.

Its just one person or company's idea of whats "right" and its pure marketing.

[eviltechie]

Originally Posted by FHH - Tim

Webhostingstuff already do that.

Its just one person or company's idea of whats "right" and its pure marketing.

Interesting. The WHS code of ethics seems to be more general business ethics though.

I was thinking more along the lines of things like:

- Host will retain a copy of the customer's data for X days after service is terminated.

- Host makes clear all limiting factors of the service (inodes, CPU time, etc).

- Doesn't oversell, or doesn't oversell beyond a certain percentage of actual available service.

- Responds to properly submitted trouble tickets in X minutes.

Etc. Things that pertain directly to the hosting industry, and directly affect users.

[QualityHost]

FindMyHosting.com has been doing for at least 4 years now.

[Tim Greer]

No one seems to offer such a thing without either some bias or more likely some type of affiliation or financial benefit for themselves. Let their own client base and the industry and their own survival determine whom is a trustworthy host or not. Who would be foolish enough to trust any of these current services that post your competition on their main page and allow advertising to have one host get more traffic than another? Or, having the service rate who they like most (or know, personally or make money from) and put them up higher on a list. None of those aspects determine what host is better, ever.

I've never seen the best hosts listed at the top of any of these. Partly because it's not possible to have them really know, but it's always a matter of who generates more money to better place them (or who pays more for ad space). You are simply not going to find any such thing in a fair and non biased format. It's too bad, because it would be a good thing and prevent a lot of scam businesses from taking clients, but I don't see it happening without all of the negative side effects. For example, look at findmyhosting's main page to see what I mean.

If they only provide "seals" for legitimate hosts that have their heads screwed safely on, then they are breaking their own ethical rules with some of the people they slap on their main page for advertising. Just a complete waste of time, let's be honest. The only real thing any host can do to stand out, is be willing to pay more for advertising than the competition. None of these people genuinely care about quality or have any desire to set any standards.

I'd be willing to be part of some community or committee to determine what hosts qualify for a seal, but myself, along with everyone else here, is either hosted by someone, owns a host, works for a host and already have in mind of whom they'd push and there can never be a fairness, even if it appears so in the illusion it creates. It's better not to even attempt something like this, there are just too many vested interests and the "seal" approval would be no more valuable in reality than these web host listing sites when you consider how they really operate.

Everyone's in this field to make money, and that's what determines whom raves about whom and how high or low they are rated, or where they are listed, and how predominantly. I don't mean to just be negative about the idea -- it's a nice idea -- it's just that I don't see how it could possibly work.

It's not like a merchant seal or SSL seal to show you've met some requirements and are a business, there are too many variables and I just don't believe the people in the current hosting industry have it in them to be honest and non biased and ethical enough to get enough people together where vested interests wouldn't dictate who is placed where or approved or not. Again, it's too bad, since it would have the potential to do away with some of the fly by night hosts that have come and gone (and taken honest users money along with them).

[ldcdc]

The biggest problem with a seal given based on fitting certain guidelines, is that it's all just words. A host can promise to or say it is ready to fit a lot of rules, and may even do so for a while. But who (and how) is going to make sure, day after day, that the X thousand hosts that have gained the right to put that seal on their sites, continue to uphold each and every one of the values/standards they're supposed to uphold?

That is the problem with these seals. And we know all too well hoe fast a host can turn from good to bad.

[DefconHost]

Originally Posted by ldcdc

The biggest problem with a seal given based on fitting certain guidelines, is that it's all just words. A host can promise to or say it is ready to fit a lot of rules, and may even do so for a while. But who (and how) is going to make sure, day after day, that the X thousand hosts that have gained the right to put that seal on their sites, continue to uphold each and every one of the values/standards they're supposed to uphold?

That is the problem with these seals. And we know all too well hoe fast a host can turn from good to bad.

Agreed, and to add to that, most current "review" or "seal" sites simply rank big-name hosts the highest, so they can bring sales through their affiliate links.

[steven99]

Originally Posted by ldcdc

That is the problem with these seals. And we know all too well hoe fast a host can turn from good to bad.

Indeed. Look at RegisterFly and ICANN for examples of seals and accreditations and such.

[eviltechie]

@ Tim:

Interesting thoughts. One of which I had actually kind of wondered about. Who would host something like this, and would they be eligible for the seal or would it be a conflict of interest?

[eviltechie]

Originally Posted by ldcdc

The biggest problem with a seal given based on fitting certain guidelines, is that it's all just words. A host can promise to or say it is ready to fit a lot of rules, and may even do so for a while. But who (and how) is going to make sure, day after day, that the X thousand hosts that have gained the right to put that seal on their sites, continue to uphold each and every one of the values/standards they're supposed to uphold?

That is the problem with these seals. And we know all too well hoe fast a host can turn from good to bad.

It would certainly be difficult.

One possible idea I had to help with it is kind of mystery shopper type thing. Where randomly, a rep from the "seal site" would sign-up with a host bearing the seal...and get first hand experience on whether the host is meeting the guidelines. Kind of line an IRS audit...where it doesn't happen all the time, but the fact that it could is always in there mind. User complaints about the host could be one thing that would increase the likelihood of an audit.

In order to pay for the audits and to run the system, it could be a subscription service. Kind of like HackerSafe, where you pay to be evaluated, and if you pass you can show the seal. Except in this case the audits would be random and secret.

[boonchuan]

There isn't any official organization that is Internet wide, so the Host Seal of Approval provided by many separate organization does not hold much weight.

[Fizzadar]

How would accepted hosts be decided?

The WHS seal is free and super-easy to get hold of, it is only for marketing and holds no real value or weight (so, it's the same as their 'uptime' badges ).

[eviltechie]

Originally Posted by Political Monster

How would accepted hosts be decided?

Good question. Don't know.

Perhaps upon initial registration there would be a review of the host's TOS and website to be sure they comply. The host would have to agree to abide by the standards required for the seal...and if found to be in violation, they would be ineligible to reapply for 6 months or something.

Another thing upon initial registration would be a thorough review of all recent complaints against the host found via google, WHT, better business bureau, etc. Purpose being to see if there are any practices which appear to violate the seal standards and to see if the host has resolved their issues. If a list of a few existing customers can be obtained, they could be interviewed as well.

[Tim Greer]

In some instances, it's not that hard to work out, and it's all about finding people that won't be influenced, but there are just too many what if's to make it a trustworthy, non biased and valuable option for some of the hosts that are honest. There are hosts that are raved about at WHT alone that I don't think are very good, and I'm sure there are complaints about hosts that are often enough not deserved, due to the lack of a client's understanding where blame lies and how much support a host should offer. People at WHT often clear up to the poster that it's not the hosts' fault, but that's only because they outline their issue on the forum.

How do we determine if they are complaint free enough for a seal and if those reports are legitimate or not (and if so, if the staff that perhaps badly handled the incident that resulted in a legitimate complaint was corrected and are far better at their job now or perhaps were terminated as to not have a repeat). Also, who determines what host is deserving and how knowledgeable and biased are they?

For example, I know some hosts are terrible, but you can't go on past experiences, so you do secretly sign up, try them out and maybe you see they appear to be okay, but you know it won't last long (but you can't prove that, for now). So, how much time do you allow to determine this? How about a good host that has a rare problem that might not have one for a very long time, but as far as you know, it's common? Is this just making sure they are following their TOS or are there other aspects?

I just don't know overall, but I do know that with some raves I see even here about massive oversellers and hosts that are ran by clueless people getting praise often enough, I would be concerned that some of these would get the seal, which makes it worthless, because regardless of some happy clients raving about them, they are barely functioning and are absolutely unable to provide what they promise.

So, it seems like a potential for a lot of wasted time, unless the right people were involved. Obviously I'm basing who the right type of people are in my own view and opinion and who's to say that I'd be agreed with? The only way people could feel happy and safe about a seal being meaningful in this industry, is if each of us either completely agreed about every aspect of the process, or all each started our own seal service that would review and approve sites or not.

Then, it would be up to the client to determine which seal "brand" is actually the better one (for what they are looking for and for their own views). So, I say this couldn't work, and that it still would come down to the client being happy or not. Obviously most of the review sites rate and promote based upon financial reasons, affiliations, friendships, and so on, and most of the ratings are skewed by people with vested interests, if not the company's themselves. I don't see this as being any different.

All anyone can do to drive business, is try and run a good company with good staff, and even (unfortunately) more importantly, to just be willing to spend more on marketing than the competition -- that is the only secret to getting more clients, as few seem to actually care about seals and accreditation. Unfortunately for the potential clients that might care about these things, you just watch what happens with the big oversellers (whom are often raved about for no good reason) and how they'll react and discredit the approval seal service, too.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but I just don't trust the accuracy of the idea, and there's already too many aspects that are frustrating in this industry that a lot of us are tired of seeing, because the people that make the decisions for some of these "services" are wrong or biased or have vested interests. I've yet to see any that don't. I just easily see there being abuse in the position by at least one member of a board that would decide.

[hostmedic]

I used to think Geek Certified might be something to go for.... but the minute I saw advertising on their website - I said forget about it.

In short - why send a potential customer to a site that lists "the top 10"
I think a good alternative would be a service like RatePoint... or the BBB

In short - its hard to have the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" because everyone currently offering it charge - sell advertising - ... or otherwise can lead your clients elsewhere.

I would love to see something come along that rates a host based on a few things

1. uptime
2. client satisfaction
3. secret shopping
4. secret support request
5. BBB rating

In reality - we have not used any of these services - although we keep having RatePoint sales contact us...

I just don't see the value in these...
I do not think clients will trust them - and those that do - are linked to other providers...