A review of Hosting Review Site

M

mwaraitch

New member
Hi,
I feel most hosting review sites are either:-

- Sponsored by the web hosting companies themselves.
- Can be used by spammer easily. (post on any one about any host you do not know or even do not exist, your success rate will be 99%).

Whats your review?
 
Hi,


I would say they are mostly sponsored by web hosting compagnies and used at their convenience, but well, it's the reality of business.

Best regards,
 
-p9- said:
Hi,


I would say they are mostly sponsored by web hosting compagnies and used at their convenience, but well, it's the reality of business.

Best regards,
Click to expand...
The point we can make here is the usefulness of these are reviews sites, and even if these are sponsored one an atmosphere of disrespect to these may bring change. I am sure there is lot which needs to be changed rather than present sort of monopoly.
 
The VAST majority of these so called review sites are some kiddie or opportunist trying to make money with affiliate links.

There are some legitimate review sites out there but unfortunately they are far out shadowed by the dishonest ones.
 
99% Of these review sites just let hosts pay for the top ten spot. Other hosts can come in and submit for free but they never get seen because of the cpc system in place.
 
I have been thinking that perhaps these are only my views, it seems large majority thinks so.
Why then these are are there, I mean success of the sposored site is only when there are decent visitors to these, why people visit them?
 
Blue said:
The VAST majority of these so called review sites are some kiddie or opportunist trying to make money with affiliate links.

There are some legitimate review sites out there but unfortunately they are far out shadowed by the dishonest ones.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you.
Most of it are full with affiliate links. :mad:
 
Why not? I think reviews help the future customers to get to know more about the company they are going to use.
 
krissybee's point is understandable from his signatures and he has the rights to defend his business.
Argument is key, if we can get some arguments in favor of web reviews sites, it would be great.
- I repeat, post comment about a host on these sites without knowing the hosting company and nothing stops you.
- Post as many comments as you like and nothing stops you.
- What stops for the review sites owners to employ and person and have tons of reviews posted on such sites?
- What makes a person to take his time out, search a site and post a review about his hosting company, more so a positive review, How many of us do it. How many would do it for their hosting company, thus whats the validity of these reviews.
 
mwaraitch said:
krissybee's point is understandable from his signatures and he has the rights to defend his business.
Argument is key, if we can get some arguments in favor of web reviews sites, it would be great.
- I repeat, post comment about a host on these sites without knowing the hosting company and nothing stops you.
- Post as many comments as you like and nothing stops you.
- What stops for the review sites owners to employ and person and have tons of reviews posted on such sites?
- What makes a person to take his time out, search a site and post a review about his hosting company, more so a positive review, How many of us do it. How many would do it for their hosting company, thus whats the validity of these reviews.
Click to expand...


Krissybee's point may be understandable and it would even carry some weight if he/she wasn't a big part of the problem.

The site in his/her signature is the typical useless affiliate site that does nothing but promote the big money hosts who pay out big commission but don't offer quality service.


In fact, I find this to be the ULTIMATE in SLEAZE.
This person has no clue about the companies he/she is promoting.
Sleazy to the point that all catagories include the same high commission hosts even though for instance, some of the "premium" Windows hosts don't even offer Windows hosting.

Nothing more than the usual low rent attempt to spam a forum to try and make a quick buck.

IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to comment on this thread for a while now, and I got the chance just now.

Look, when we speak of true "review" site - all of them are subjective, no matter who runs it or who reviews it, as it always reflects the experience of one person or a group of reviewers.

I think it comes down to verifiable standards one sets in reviewing and hard factual data backing up a review. For example, if we review uptime, the use of 1 or 2 trusted uptime tools could backup claims of "my site is never down" nature. However, monitoring just main site alone isn't enough to correctly represent the performance of all company. A host might run hundreds of servers, and most of the time, keep their own site in a different location altogether. So, if you touch on the uptime subject, the best thing to do is monitor as many sites located on different servers hosted by the company.

As far as top 10 lists go, they are nothing more than a bunch of affiliate links from top paying companies. If current companies suddenly stop their affiliate campaigns and a new group of companies enter the market with higher commissions, you will see those "top 10" lists changing form just as fast fast, with no discretion. They have no validity whatsoever, and often become the reason why so many new hosting customers run back crying and complaining about their negative experiences.
 
Artashes said:
I wanted to comment on this thread for a while now, and I got the chance just now.

Look, when we speak of true "review" site - all of them are subjective, no matter who runs it or who reviews it, as it always reflects the experience of one person or a group of reviewers.

I think it comes down to verifiable standards one sets in reviewing and hard factual data backing up a review. For example, if we review uptime, the use of 1 or 2 trusted uptime tools could backup claims of "my site is never down" nature. However, monitoring just main site alone isn't enough to correctly represent the performance of all company. A host might run hundreds of servers, and most of the time, keep their own site in a different location altogether. So, if you touch on the uptime subject, the best thing to do is monitor as many sites located on different servers hosted by the company.
Click to expand...

You have point here. Yet there are few aspects which can be quantified. I assume those have been deliberately overlooked due to thief becoming policeman sort of situation.
The major hosting companies control the way things are to be represented on net and there is no customers group or organised community to defend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top