Ok...Just some random thoughts...
- Thread starter Exon
- Start date
Exon
New member
pmhoran said:
This is a good point, but quite honestly, how many hosts do you expect to maintain the quality expected to keep the seal? I would love for all hosts to keep the seal, but - to be realistic, not all will, and more likely those who don't keep the seal are most likely not to apply for it in the first place. So that also would limit the number of applicants. But, again, if it were to be more recognized/expected/demanded then chances are that more would apply.
pmhoran said: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
That last part is going to be suspected no matter who started the organization.
I think that a mix of hosting-affiliated and non-affiliated people is best; with the hosting-affiliated folks rotating membership. No hosting company can keep someone on the board of trustees for more than...what...three years running or twelve years cumulative (limits can be changed at a later point in time.) There needs to be a way to ensure that, once this thing begins to take off, it isn't simply taken over by one of the major hosting companies who seed their people throughout every level and keep any and all other hosting companies from being certified or from participating on the board.
Exon said:
The only potential problem I can forsee here is: if hosts know who the reviewers are, they may consciously or unconsciously treat that hosting client differently. So would names and other definitively-identifying information be somehow hidden from hosts but available to other viewers?
Exon
New member
I would say real names on the bio, but a different name would need to be used, or the reviewer would need to signup and act on behalf of someone else - say my youngest brother wants to have hosting, but he has not yet come of age to where he can have a credit card. I would pay for the hosting, but his name would be under the signup.
I don't know how that would all work, that would be another question, how would you handle signup information/reviewer information?
I don't know how that would all work, that would be another question, how would you handle signup information/reviewer information?
Yes - the reviewers might need to ask friends or relatives about using their credit cards - or use Paypal accounts. (Though a few would probably want to send in payments via snailmail [money orders], if a host accepts this as a form of payment. That can get around the identification-question.)
The reviewers could try falsifying information, and see if hosts catch that - and if they don't, let the hosts know *afterwards* so that they could fix their due-diligence process if they chose.
The reviewers could try falsifying information, and see if hosts catch that - and if they don't, let the hosts know *afterwards* so that they could fix their due-diligence process if they chose.
pmhoran
New member
Lesli said:
Hmmmm ... do you honestly believe a board of web host peers who are trying to "clean up" the business could be bought to certify someone they feel is going to undermine what they are attempting to do?
Thats why I personally would trust a board of industry peers ... rather than a bunch of relatively unknowns who have absolutely no vested interest in achieving that goal.
Peter
Exon
New member
But who would you suggest Peter? Who would you trust to be on the board for such an organization? I don't know anyone who I could trust anymore than my own service provider.
Edit: I just noticed I'm over the 100 post count mark, I'd like to thank Artashes for the forum community, and ldcdc for having a link to this forum in his WHT signature. Amen...err, thanks!
Edit: I just noticed I'm over the 100 post count mark, I'd like to thank Artashes for the forum community, and ldcdc for having a link to this forum in his WHT signature. Amen...err, thanks!
pmhoran said:
There are some people in every group who can and will be bought, especially if they think that the situation can be steered to benefit them exclusively. It's sad, but it's human nature.
Think of how it would appear to consumers - they're the ones we'd be trying to convince, not just other web hosts. Consumers already are a bit leery of the web hosting industry. How would you honestly feel about hearing of a group of used car dealers (just to use a group / business that's stereotypically untrusted) who started something to try and reform the industry? You'd be a little bit suspicious, maybe willing to give them the benefit of the doubt - but you'd be careful of taking what they said at face value, because you'd wonder how they were directly benefitting. We've seen companies trying all sorts of dodgy things to get positive spin. If there is a mix of hosting-affiliated people for the industry-specific knowledge; and non-hosting-affiliated people to keep them in check; the board and the reviews have a better chance of being impartial.
pmhoran
New member
Exon said:
Well ... that is where I bow out
I am not knowledgeable enough about the industry to be able to suggest anyone really. But if I was put on the spot ... there are a few on this forum that I would not hestitate to suggest. I haven't been here long ... but the people I am thinking of have all impressed me as people wishing to improve the profile of the web hosting industry. They have struck me as people of honesty, integrity and in possession of a generous spirit. But these are my impressions from only having know them (or of them) for a few weeks. So I am not about to say my impressions of these people are totally and inarguably accurate
There are those among you who have been involved in the industry for years ... and I am sure you know the ones who you KNOW will uphold the ideals of an association like we have been discussing. People whose opinions you value & trust ... peers in the industry you respect and/or admire. Those are the people who should be considered to be involved in the developement of this association.
Again ... JMHO
Peter
pmhoran
New member
Lesli ... I can see your point. Maybe I am just suffering from a naive tunnel vision I still can't get it out of my mind that a peer to peer association would be the best way to go.
As the association became more well known and certification of a web host became more sought after ... then no doubt articles would be written up about it in e-zines and print magazines dealing with the industry. As long as the objectives of the association and its integrity remains untarnished. And I feel those articles would be written quicker if it was an association of peers.
Then again ... I don't actually trust what I read in the e-zines any more. My first and second "paid for" web hosts I chose because of articles I had read ... and both hosts screwed me. Without vaseline :smilie3:
Peter
I still can't get it out of my mind that a peer to peer association would be the best way to go.As the association became more well known and certification of a web host became more sought after ... then no doubt articles would be written up about it in e-zines and print magazines dealing with the industry. As long as the objectives of the association and its integrity remains untarnished. And I feel those articles would be written quicker if it was an association of peers.
Then again ... I don't actually trust what I read in the e-zines any more. My first and second "paid for" web hosts I chose because of articles I had read ... and both hosts screwed me. Without vaseline :smilie3:
Peter
pmhoran
New member
Exon said:
Well ... it has absolutely nothing to do with web hosting. But since you are putting me on the spot .... when I choose a mechanic or need an autobody shop ... I only choose ones that are certified by the CAA (which is similar to the USA's AAA)
As a consumer ... and never having been a web host or anything ... I would be more likely to trust a "seal" issued to a web host by an association of peers ... before I would trust a "seal" issued by an association of consumers.
JMHO ... but I am sticking to it hahaha
Peter
Exon said:Nicely put!
I think a diverse peer-to-peer network of hosts wouldn't be a BAAAD thing - one would just need to make sure that said hosts would be reliable, and as stated, driven towards the betterment of the hosting community and not self preservation.
This is why I suggest a mix. People will always *want* to better their own business - that's natural. It's also entirely possible for a web host to be a part of this panel / association, remain impartial, and still better their own business. It just takes more work to keep conflicts of interest from taking over.
If a peer-to-peer network is started up, what assurances would there be that this group would be able to stay true to its vision? In essense, who watches the watchers? If the group's goals are clearly communicated and publicly stated, that's a start. If the membership of the board rotates regularly, that's another way to ensure that no company can simply overrun the group. Even if person A left the group and then returned two years hence, that's a two-year time period where they aren't able to actively be a part of the steering committee of this organization, and would have a much harder time pushing any agendas to give one company preference over another.
pmhoran
New member
Lesli said:
If the association wanted their "seal" to mean anything at all ... they would have to remain "true to its vision".
Maybe I put too much trust in human nature ... but if the right board members are sought initially (an odd number of board members so no tie votes
) then they could "self police". I doubt if one member was seen to lose their integrity or ability to be unbiased ... it would not afflict all the members at the same time So that board member could be voted off and a new board member sought.My brain is about to go on TILT mode. I am not used to thinking this hard about anything
Peter
Exon
New member
I must take a lunch as well - so a nice break for all of us from this thinking and pondering.
I concur with Peter, as long as the right members were used from the start there shouldn't be problems, and, as he stated, an odd number to prevent ties, 11, 13, what-have-you, and no more than one rep per company to ensure that they couldn't "gang up" so to speak.
If one decided to step down, or was putting the organization's integrity on the line, said member could be voted out and a new member brought in.
Edit: off to lunch I go, and Peter, they've seen the thread...cause I've been checkin' the "who's online" deal
But I would love to hear some more comments/points brought up. I'm enjoying this discussion.
I concur with Peter, as long as the right members were used from the start there shouldn't be problems, and, as he stated, an odd number to prevent ties, 11, 13, what-have-you, and no more than one rep per company to ensure that they couldn't "gang up" so to speak.
If one decided to step down, or was putting the organization's integrity on the line, said member could be voted out and a new member brought in.
Edit: off to lunch I go, and Peter, they've seen the thread...cause I've been checkin' the "who's online" deal
But I would love to hear some more comments/points brought up. I'm enjoying this discussion.
ldcdc
New member
All thanks should go to Artashes. I don't have HD in my signature at WHT or anywhere else for that matter.
It's a long thread, I had to catch up.
IMO (and believe me, I gave it a lot of thought in the last 18 months or so), a very close to perfect association has little chances of existing. That's why it did not sprung up and thrived.
Two of my reasons:
1. Not feasible. Why? Because you'd have to have more people review the host at the same time. It's always possible for a host (or host employee) to mistreat one customer, but that doesn't make the company bad. Time costs money, and definitely those $200 won't be able to cover the costs for getting hosting plans (for say 6 reviewers). Reevaluation would have to occur at least every months (IMO).
What if you're evaluating a managed hosting provider with costs of $1000/month/server?
What if you're evaluating a company like Akamai? Can one actualy compare Akamai to the average hosting company out there?
2. A system based on benevolent volunteers has high chances of not working properly. Think of DMOZ and all the problems it faces.
Last edited:
-
HostingDiscussion
A community for web hosting professionals and enthusiasts, since 2002.
