Ok...Just some random thoughts...

[pmhoran]

The database on the organization's site would be searchable to guests for free I'm assuming -

Yes ... and be classified as Members, Rejected Hosts, Suspended Members and Pending Applicants. There could be a "pending seal" for hosts who have applied but have not as yet been approved ... but not a regular members seal.

and would show the average response times by hosts, their current plans (which they would be responsible for updating) and any other extra information such as contact information and current years of operation.

Also tied in with this could be "Certified Host of the Year" and the organization could have like a host roundup at the end of each year showcasing a host that had the best overall in the categories.

That gets into a whole different kettle of fish I think. The association shouldn't get into "advertising" for its members ... only a certification and redirection service to hosts that are approved members.

Getting into the advertising and "Certified Host of the Year" ... personally I think it might be seen as undermining the integrity of the "seal" and the association. There are other sites for advertising ... the association, as I see it, would be about honesty & intergrity of the member host.

JMHO
Peter

 

[Lesli]

I also would not want to have plans listed in this database - at least, not initially. Peter's right - it's more maintenance, it can detract from the group's purpose. If things go smoothly, this could be added in later (RSS feed, perhaps, to make it easier for hosts to maintain?) but only if it could be done in a way that would not make the listings / comparison the reason for visiting the site.

What I see on a site like this, what I would look for from a consumer standpoint:
* list of the hosts
* what they offer (broadstroke: Windows, Linux, reseller, dedicated, colo, shared hosting, VPS)
* a Consumer Reports-style review on their service level
* recertification test dates (month and year, or quarter and year, to preserve shopper anonymity) and what the reviewers found as compared to previous checks

 

[Exon]

I like the idea of a "mystery shopper" who would produce a quality review. Each year this "review" could be revisisted. How long would the "mystery shoppers" have an account with the host for? Throughout the year?

After reading what Peter and Lesli had posted it is a good idea to keep away from "advertising" per say for the host, more of just a "consumer reports" style site for people to visit, but hosts have to apply for it first.

 

[pmhoran]

When I initially saw Peter mentioning ISO, I cringed. I've previously helped companies get ISO certification, and the maintenance is a royal blitch (the "l" is silent). Plus - believe me on this one - they don't check to see that you produce a quality product, or even that you provide quality service. They check to see that you have procedures in place and that the company claims to follow them.

After I wrote it I was rethinking that thought But ... the "concept" of the ISO certification is basically what I am touting. A company decides the product and the quality of product they would provide ... and it would be detailed for all to see at all times. As long as a company says they are selling apples & they are of a certain quality ... and they are providing apples & the apples they provide are of the quality stated ... then the association should have no problem with it. The problems arise when a company states they are selling apples & they are of a certain quality ... but the company ends up providing lemons ... that is where the problems arise.

Again ... JMHO
Peter

 

[Lesli]

I love a good discussion in the morning...

I like the idea of a "mystery shopper" who would produce a quality review. Each year this "review" could be revisisted. How long would the "mystery shoppers" have an account with the host for? Throughout the year?

You'd need a few, wouldn't you? For hosts who advertise a money-back guarantee, you'd need someone to sign up, then drop their account to test that. Then you'd need people to stay longer - three months minimum, I should think. You'll want to look for longer stays as well - six months to possibly a year.

You'll also want to recruit "initial mystery shoppers" who may eventually decide that they want to stay with a host - causing, almost, a longer-term test. Otherwise, the shoppers would have to keep creating sites and then panning them. So...there needs to be some graceful way for shoppers to retire.

Shoppers need to be carefully screened, as well. You need good communicators, you need thorough people, you need people who can be rigorously impartial (in good reviews as well as in bad reviews), you need folks who aren't just in it to get free hosting or (perish the thought) to test various networks and servers for spam- or hack-worthiness. Shopper recruitment will have to be done carefully.

 

[pmhoran]

I like the idea of a "mystery shopper" who would produce a quality review.

Yeah ... get people like me (but not me ) That know enough that they could write an intelligent review and recommendation to the association ... but not know so much they'd have difficulty passing themselves off as a complete newbie when necessary And they would have to be trusted by the association to be able to submit honest and accurate reviews ... no matter who they are assessing. No personal or professional bias allowed

Peter

 

[Lesli]

After I wrote it I was rethinking that thought But ... the "concept" of the ISO certification is basically what I am touting. A company decides the product and the quality of product they would provide ... and it would be detailed for all to see at all times. As long as a company says they are selling apples & they are of a certain quality ... and they are providing apples & the apples they provide are of the quality stated ... then the association should have no problem with it. The problems arise when a company states they are selling apples & they are of a certain quality ... but the company ends up providing lemons ... that is where the problems arise.

Again ... JMHO
Peter

Gotcha This is most definitely a good idea - to test what a company says, then simply hold them to their word.

One thing that should be considered: a history of how the group came to be, and who is currently running the group. Full disclosure, and so forth.

 

[Lesli]

Yeah ... get people like me (but not me ) That know enough that they could write an intelligent review and recommendation to the association ... but not know so much they'd have difficulty passing themselves off as a complete newbie when necessary And they would have to be trusted by the association to be able to submit honest and accurate reviews ... no matter who they are assessing. No personal or professional bias allowed

Peter

That's why I suggested finding both newbies to hosting and quasi-geeks. Even if they're thorough, it might be difficult for a quasi-geek to evaulate a hosting service as it would appear through the eyes of someone who's perhaps had a Geocities site, maybe used FrontPage a bit, and other than that is active in various AOL forums and messenger...but doesn't know the difference between an email account and an email alias.

And yes - I forgot to mention, but they will need to be screened to make sure that they aren't employed by another hosting company in any capacity. Either that...or have them report any affiliate programs they belong to, and make sure that they never get asked to review that host.

 

[Exon]

Perhaps the organization, who would probably be made up of what - say 10 "Board Members" would also be the ones would would go and review hosts. If the board member were to be employed (or own) a hosting company they would be ineligible to write reviews.

I don't know how you would screen against people who would try to take advantage of the situation.

 

[pmhoran]

Actually Lesli ... I believe it is possible to find even owners of other web hosting companies who could provide an honest and unbiased assessment and recommendation to the association ... without letting professional bias enter the picture. View the applicant as just that ... an applicant for membership ... not as a potential competitor. That is one of the main reasons (but not the only one) I feel advertising should not be considered for the associations website.

Oh yeah ... and the association would have to establish a way of handling complaints. That is a given.

 

[Exon]

What kind of complaints would you expect to be submitted?

And I honestly feel as though I could provide an unbiased assessment/recomendation - but if I were a visitor to the site and looking through, then come to find out the person reviewing is a host themselves my opinion of both might become skewed.

 

[Lesli]

Just as long as the complaint handling doesn't turn into handling every single complaint - and that consumers know that they have to make an effort to solve the problem with the host first according to that host's published complaint procedure. First step would be to help hosts develop their own policy for handling complaints. Next step - make sure that consumers know that there are steps for handling a problem, and that if the problem can't be handled with the host in question, the association will help arbitrate.

As for other web hosting company owners who can be impartial - probably there are. However, I do know that there are also people who are looking to promote the company they work for - or are being paid by a hosting company - for whom they may not be a client - to submit reviews for them or generate positive press. I don't know that any screening process will block 100% of all mystery shoppers with axes to grind or paid endorsements to make. Those who look over the reviews will need to decide if the reviews are thorough and impartial enough for the mystery shopper to be paid. If they are - great, no worries. If they're not - the association won't have to pay out any money for a review that will ultimately weaken the strength of the service.

For screening, maybe it could be announced that reviewers will not be reimbursed / paid until their review has been submitted and read over for thoroughness and accuracy? (This is how mystery shopping works.)

 

[Lesli]

Exon has a good point - if people see that the site is run by hosts, and reviews are written by hosts, they may not entirely trust the reviews. Unless there was full disclosure up front of which hosting company the reviewer worked for / was connected with at the time the review was written?

Possibly, to start off, most of the reviewers would be connected with the hosting industry - though it would be nice to try and find a mix. As time passes, more consumers (non-hosting-affiliated) might be attracted to the reviewing program.

 

[Exon]

Well with the mystery shopper there'd have to be a few roadblocks for them to examine, IE: bandwidth limits - you know, start off with a small account and then all of a sudden the bandwidth is used up. How does the host react to it, do they help the client out or try to take advantage of said situation?

Also Mystery Shoppers would need to be smart enough to act "noobie" enough for the host. I would honestly say that the Mystery Shopper would almost need to try and press the hosts' buttons, but not intentionally anger them. Just enough dumb questions to where any knowledgeable host would become tiresome of the evercoming tickets.

Mystery Shoppers would have to be on an invite only system. Perhaps the organization could look to well known forum leaders for help/aid in the shopping department, but then again several forum leaders may also be hosts, which could skew the reviews/opinions of readers.

 

[pmhoran]

What kind of complaints would you expect to be submitted?

Obviously ... a rejected applicant might want to complain and want a re-assessment done. And no matter how diligently the association attempts to maintain the integrity of its "seal" and its membership ... undoubtedly there are going to be unhappy customers of a host who feel the host should not be permitted to display the "seal" or that their membership should be recinded.

There just has to be procedures in place by which each complaint would be handled.

And I honestly feel as though I could provide an unbiased assessment/recomendation - but if I were a visitor to the site and looking through, then come to find out the person reviewing is a host themselves my opinion of both might become skewed.

But who else do you think the associations board members would be comprised of ?? I think personally that if a group of peers in the industry, that are fairly well known and have a good reputation in the industry, were the ones with the final decision on whether a host has met the criteria for becoming a member ... their decision would be more highly regarded than if the associations board members were a bunch of yahoo's like me. Like ... who cares ... what web host would care what my opinion is? Right???

Peter

 

[Lesli]

Hosting forums are not the only forums that exist on the web (Granted, they're the ones we frequent the most - but they aren't the only ones.) To start things off, the organization would need to ask friends and family if they frequented any forums, what types of forums they frequented, and if they knew of any people on that forum who were good communicators, and helpful with the community. This might often be the moderators or guides - or it might not be - but that would be some initial leads.

Your idea of the invite-only system sounds like a good way to ensure that the reviewers are known, both in terms of personality / communication skills and hosting affiliations.

For hosts that become decertified: would there be a minimum time requirement for recertification? Would this history be retained? For how long? (I personally think that keeping a history of all reviews, and making them available, can only be a good thing in terms of being seen as thorough.)

 

[Exon]

This is true, well standing members in the hosting community would have to comprise the "board" of - hell they're trusted right? So.. a Board of Trustees - at any rate I can see the complaints, and therefore there would need to be "filters" in place. A user could submit a complaint, but a form on the website would be filled out. If the complaint was about a host a copy could perhaps go to both the host and the organization. After level one reviewed the complaint, if it was something that the organization could handle it would move on for further review - else they would be told that there was nothing the organization could do (account suspended for nonpayment because the dog ate the check) the complaintee would have to take it up with the host.

 

[Lesli]

Obviously ... a rejected applicant might want to complain and want a re-assessment done. And no matter how diligently the association attempts to maintain the integrity of its "seal" and its membership ... undoubtedly there are going to be unhappy customers of a host who feel the host should not be permitted to display the "seal" or that their membership should be recinded.

There just has to be procedures in place by which each complaint would be handled.



But who else do you think the associations board members would be comprised of ?? I think personally that if a group of peers in the industry, that are fairly well known and have a good reputation in the industry, were the ones with the final decision on whether a host has met the criteria for becoming a member ... their decision would be more highly regarded than if the associations board members were a bunch of yahoo's like me. Like ... who cares ... what web host would care what my opinion is? Right???

Peter

Only problem there is:

* who defines "good reputation"?
* who defines "well known"?

It can be argued that CIHost is well known to consumers (the folks for whom this site would exist - if they don't trust and value it, they won't use it). However, they don't necessarily have a good reputation *within* the hosting industry.

And if you say "Hosts should be certified my Microsoft because everyone knows who they are", I will send you a box full of garden snails. :crash:

And as a web host, I care what a consumer's opinion is. You're the one who would be using the service - so your opinion counts as much as other web hosts'. They know the technical aspects. You know how you feel about the service you receive.

 

[Exon]

For hosts that become decertified: would there be a minimum time requirement for recertification? Would this history be retained? For how long? (I personally think that keeping a history of all reviews, and making them available, can only be a good thing in terms of being seen as thorough.)

No records would be deleted - but in the database of applied hosts it would state whether or not they were still a member or not. I would have to say that if records were deleted if a user is searching for a host that was once a member, lost certification for whatever reason, that reason would need to be stated and kept public.

 

[pmhoran]

For hosts that become decertified: would there be a minimum time requirement for recertification? Would this history be retained? For how long? (I personally think that keeping a history of all reviews, and making them available, can only be a good thing in terms of being seen as thorough.)

I agree with this ... emphatically

And I still feel an association developed by web hosts and discussion forum leaders whose main function by starting the association is to protect the honesty and integrity of the web hosting business is the way to go. After all ... every time one web host screws its customers it tends to make the customers even more cautious and less trusting of every web host they encounter anytime after.

So having an association of certified & approved members that have been judged as worthy by a board of their peers ... I think that would carry the most weight in the industry.

If it was an association started by and overseen by say people like me who are not professionals ... how would anyone know that web hosts are not just "buying" the right to display the seal???

Peter