Ok...Just some random thoughts...

[pmhoran]

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).

I sort of disagree. It would really only take one reviewer to determine if the host is conducting business as per their stated "rules of operation". The personal interaction wouldn't really have a bearing on the assessment ... unless in the company's "rules of operation" they state their customers are always treated with consideration & respect but the reviewers experience is anything but. Then personal interaction would become part of the review.

But it should be a mandatory agreement that reviewers only interact with the company & employee's only in a non-confrontational way. And copies of all correspondence ... sent & received ... must accompany any reviewers assessment. Otherwise ... if the personal interaction is of a negative nature ... how would the board know if the reviewer didn't incite it themselves?

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?

I personally had never heard of Akamai before your mention of them ( told you I wasn't that knowledgeable about the industry ) Obviously though, there will be companies out there who would not be interested in a "seal of approval" from any association. Nor would they need it. I envision it will be the smaller type start ups that would be appreciative of a "seal" that would lump them into a group of "good guys" ... and thereby offsetting the negative impressions left by the "bad guys".

And its the consumers that would be looking at the "smaller guys" that would appreciate the "seal". Lets face it ... probably 99.9% of people looking at using Akamai would already be knowledgeable enough to know how the company operates and interacts with their customers.

2. A system based on benevolent volunteers has high chances of not working properly. Think of DMOZ and all the problems it faces.

Again showing my ignorance ... I am aware of DMOZ but have no idea what problems its facing. Except their database isn't as accurate as maybe it should be. But the same can be said for Google too.

Any association is only as good as its members. Just as any business is only as good as its weakest link. If there is the desire of the board and of its members maintains its honesty & integrity ... then there is a real opportunity to attempt to "clean up" the industry so the charlatans will be more easily recognized (hopefully)

But if the board members enter this with preconceived notion the whole endeavour is doomed to fail ... then yeah ... it IS going to fail.


Peter

 

[Exon]

Peter,
I hadn't heard of either before today.

 

[pmhoran]

It's a long thread, I had to catch up.

I guess a few of us might have become maybe overly exuberant & prolific ... and I have been reinforcing my reputation (on other forums) of being overly verbose

Oh well ... :smilie3:

Peter

 

[webfreak08]

Would you be thinking that a "seal" requires the host to sell packages at... 20cents/GB transfer or more? Would you have to require that?

I would not think that a host should be required to sell items at a specified price. In my opinion, cheap is not a price--it's the kind of service and product you get.

 

[ldcdc]

I sort of disagree.

Disagreeing it the road to progress. I remember that communists used to says that. They really knew the meaning of propaganda.

But if the board members enter this with preconceived notion the whole endeavour is doomed to fail ... then yeah ... it IS going to fail.

True, but if it is doomed to fail, then it will fail.

In my view, an unbiased association would not have its members involved directly in hosting. Conflicts of interests can appear and influence decisions in ways you can never imagine.

It would really only take one reviewer to determine if the host is conducting business as per their stated "rules of operation".

At the Olimpics they use more than a single judge. In a court of law a jury is formed by more than a single person. There are valid reasons for that.

Also, a host might provide good service to its customers but behave in a despicable way from other business/professional points of view: some companies mass phone people based on whois info.

The dedicated server is a reality and a popular hosting product. Testing such a service from a regular company can easily cost hundreds of dollars if the service is fully managed.

Testing uptime is another important issue. All customers want to know about uptime levels. Testing a server out of 50 servers a host might have, is not a reliable measurement on which you can make a judgement on their uptime. There are as many uptimes as servers and in fact, as many uptimes as services on that server (email, mysql etc)

We then have the problem of testing as a method of deciding whether a company is good or not. Remember that a seal is a "go with them you're safe" kind of vote. The real test is not when things go smoothly. The real test is when things actually go wrong. How a company deals with such situations, what they learn out of it, what procedures they create to handle difficult scenarios etc.

To give a seal/badge is not a difficult thing to do. To have that seal really means something, is very difficult though.

In my opinion, cheap is not a price--it's the kind of service and product you get.

Correct as a general statement, but taken to particular it doesn't hold water. Would you go with a host offering 1000GB of bandwidth and 100GB of space for $5/month?

All that said, I can imagine a group of hosts creating an association and basically saying "we're good guys" and where new hosts could join by invitation only. However, the underlying purpose of that association would not be the one we're envisioning here, but a more practical one. Such is business.

 

[webfreak08]

Correct as a general statement, but taken to particular it doesn't hold water. Would you go with a host offering 1000GB of bandwidth and 100GB of space for $5/month?

Using my definition, that would not be cheap, although it would definitely make me suspicious because there would be a 99.99% chance that it was some sort of scam. I always like to refer to things I buy as "inexpensive" rather than "cheap". Cheap, in my opinion, is almost like saying junk.

 

[ldcdc]

Let's put it another way then: would you recommend anyone to sign-up with that host?

 

[webfreak08]

Let's put it another way then: would you recommend anyone to sign-up with that host?

Of course not. If I did, I'd have a lot of people going -> :crash:

 

[pmhoran]

Testing uptime is another important issue.

I can logically understand the validity in much of what you say and suggest. I just need to ponder on these things a bit more. I think my brain went from TILT mode to full blown short circuit

I never understood that "uptime" stuff. Every host I have ever had always has a way of blaming a downtime on someone else so they feel it does not affect their uptime percentages. So ... I ignore those claims now.

Peter

 

[Exon]

Well, the organization would have to start off with lower cost hosting providers. Say, shared hosting only to start until it had more investor backings that would allow it to stress test dedicated solutions/colocations. While this wouldn't be fair to said hosting individuals, it would be the only way the organization could start off without immediately being a million dollars in debt.

 

[pmhoran]

Like I alluded to before ... I guess when this thread started my thoughts went exclusively to the shared hosting businesses. And my "tunnel vision" kept me thinking only of it being those businesses until someone (I think it was ldcdc) opened my eyes to the fact that web hosting these days is more broad and encompassing than my thinking was allowing me to visualize.

Maybe I am more "out of sync" with todays reality than I thought ... but, from where I stand, it still appears that its the shared hosting businesses that get most of the "black eyes" when a similar business does the "grab the money & run" routine. Admittedly, I do not know anyone who has signed for co-location or has their own dedicated servers ... except maybe some of you guys here. I do know or know of a fairly large number of people who have been burnt, some burnt badly, by the fly-by-night shared hosting companies.

So ... personally ... my thoughts in all this have been geared to help the novice or the newbie ... who does not have the experience & knowledge ... find a host that will most likely "treat him right".

As I said previously ... the customers who would normally be going for the co-location or dedicated servers, most would or should have the knowledge & experience whereby they could do their own investigation and determine if the web host they are considering is likely to be a good one to go with or not.

At least ... that is how I see it
Peter

 

[ldcdc]

Maybe instead of an association of any kind, a simple website with helpful articles that would help educate customers would be more effective and easily to create. No ads, no nothing on it, just pure content, with hosts putting a "we support Site Name" button/banner on their sites.

Kind of like how it was with Unlimband.com back in the days.

 

[pmhoran]

I am not familiar with Unlimband.com ... but ...

There seems to me to already be a plethora of sites already where a person can read those types of articles, bits of wisdom and advice. Trouble is that the people who should spend the time to read them ... don't. Or maybe they just don't realize they should be reading them first.

Okay ... another possibility just came to mind. How about a no fee, no advertising ... type of "association" (for lack of a better term) similar to those ones where you can have the privilege of displaying a "seal of approval" by agreeing to a defined set of "terms & conditions". I think I have seen a sort of "Child Safe" logo ... and a few other types that my brain won't let me remember right now.

The association could lay down the "terms & conditions" that a web host would pledge they would aspire to meet and/or surpass. And by completing the form they would be given permission to display a seal or banner or ??? on their site that they support and agree with the initiatives of the association ... or something like that. Have it so the completed forms are viewable by interested viewers ... and maintain a list of sites that did not meet their pledge and could no longer display the seal.

The seal would have to be controlled from the association so and associated with their membership number and the web address of where it will be displayed so if they are in good standing then one seal is displayed ... and if they get plopped into the "bad guys" list then if they tried to still display the seal it would come up as rescinded or something. Or if someone not an approved member could not display the seal on their own site because the web address would be wrong. Some kind of control thing like that.

Maybe having different "levels" of seals with more stringent "terms & conditions" the higher the level of seal. Like a Bronze, Silver & Gold or something.

Just more jumbled thought
Peter

 

[Exon]

Problem with that is then it's too easy for the fly-by-nights to grab one of those and become a "trusted member".

 

[ldcdc]

I agree with Exon. Sorry Peter.

and maintain a list of sites that did not meet their pledge and could no longer display the seal.

Maybe having different "levels" of seals with more stringent "terms & conditions" the higher the level of seal. Like a Bronze, Silver & Gold or something.

It would soon become a logistical nightmare to administer the list of hosts. Also, the value of the seal would be very small. It's basically a "we promise that...", which is basically just a reiteration of what the host says on their site.

 

[Exon]

As far as the who gets what seal couldn't that be done with some sort of allow/deny list? Like an ACL? I'm not skilled in the coding language but I'm sure it could be done.

 

[pmhoran]

I agree with Exon. Sorry Peter.

No need for anyone to be sorry that their view is opposite of another posters. Thats what this thread is all about ... gathering thoughts.

In retrospect ... and considering yours & Exons viewpoints ... I am not sure I agree with me either

Even MORE thinking required.

Peter