Webhosts to avoid

J

JamesCWilson

New member
This more of a request than anything, but would there be any way that we could try and compile a list of web hosts to avoid at all costs, and then sticky this topic, as a quick reference point for forum members?

Just a thought :)
 
I want to add 1and1.com in this first, in all cases they will be the topper, just try with the keyword " 1and1 + fraud" in google you will get the complete history, never ever go to 1and1.com in your life .

Next comes vrtservers.net in my personal experience, this is a scam company operated by only one person.
 
JamesCWilson said:
This more of a request than anything, but would there be any way that we could try and compile a list of web hosts to avoid at all costs, and then sticky this topic, as a quick reference point for forum members?

Just a thought :)
Click to expand...

Anybody might have had a bad experience with any hosting company, but this shouldn't be enough to put that company in the list of web hosts to avoid at all costs.
 
Yes if its only one who have bad experience with one company i agree that it should not come under this but if many are trouble by that company it should come, am i right ?

OR what yard stick you use to define a company is to be avoided ? Give that lets discuss on that point
 
Yes i do agree then what method can be used to blacklist a company ? Thats what i had asked in the last line, see every one pays money to the host and they are not intended to cheat any one, it may one persons experience or collectively 1000 persons experience, cheat is a cheat ok.

I am not defending myself but asking in what other way you can define a company is no good ? I m saying that in my experience 1and1 is no good and also had given a link

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=1a...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

for checking please see there about 1000 pages are there about them.
 
inprogrammer200 said:
Yes if its only one who have bad experience with one company i agree that it should not come under this but if many are trouble by that company it should come, am i right ?

OR what yard stick you use to define a company is to be avoided ? Give that lets discuss on that point
Click to expand...


that's the problem. it's not easy to say that this company has this many bad reviews so it should be listed.

lets say we find all reviews of two companies on the net:
1st company has 1000 bad reviews, 100 good reviews
2nd company has 1000 bad reviews, 100000 good reviews
which one should be listed? both?

it's also easier to find more bad reviews than good reviews, because most of the people don't write anything about their experiences when everything is working well.
 
There should be no blacklist because it's far too subjective.

1&1 is possibly the largest hosting company in the world. Of course there are going to be people unhappy with their services. Why should that over shadow hundreds of thousands if not millions of clients who are happy with their services?

The bottom line is you should do research, make a list of potential hosts and then narrow your choices down from there by doing more research.
 
Blue said:
There should be no blacklist because it's far too subjective.

1&1 is possibly the largest hosting company in the world. Of course there are going to be people unhappy with their services. Why should that over shadow hundreds of thousands if not millions of clients who are happy with their services?

The bottom line is you should do research, make a list of potential hosts and then narrow your choices down from there by doing more research.
Click to expand...

1and1 worlds best host ? Great news to me, i dont know how u define them in this list, i have very very bad experience with them and they proved to be totally unethical this is the bottomline where a company fails to impress the clients, your business model.
 
Any web host that's been in operation for a period of time is going to have some clients who are happy, and some who are unhappy. How many, and how unhappy, is probably tied to how many clients they have. (It's too early for me to work out the math.) So blacklisting web service providers (hosts, designers) solely based on how many complaints they've had is not necessarily reliable.

There's also issues of liability. With Internet access, anyone can create forum accounts / blogs and post just about anything, positive or negative. It's substantially easier to create "information", and less easy to collectively say "yes, this stuff is all neutral, accurate, and valid". (Example: all those "top ten web host" sites that are either giant affiliate-link farms or sponsored projects by the hosts in question, versus the very few that are actually reliable reflections of the host's service.) So once a web host gets blacklisted, they'll come after said site with their legal team and either say, "We've addressed these issues and the complaints weren't substantiated" - and then whoever's running the site gets to try and verify the truth of that statement - or they'll say "the remarks on this site are false and defamatory, if you don't remove them we'll sue." Then you get to go through the fun of a court case and all the attendant costs...and it becomes a giant headache.

It would be great if it were possible to build and maintain a scrupulously accurate, reliable database of web hosts with misleading claims, "trap" TOSes, and unreliable service. But the mechanics of maintaining such a thing (not even touching funding) are pretty daunting.
 
Yes i do agree with you then with what parameters a host can be defined in this ?

Even the spam blacklisting is having certain protocols which is accepted by some and not accepted by some like that what protocols or parameters can be used to define this list
 
I think tons of people could chime in on this but you need to remember that most times each clients issue is different than the other. Unless its some company that constantly has downtime (more than uptime or even breaking even) most places will have "bad reports" from upset clients. Thats just the way things go.
 
inprogrammer200 said:
1and1 worlds best host ? Great news to me, i dont know how u define them in this list, i have very very bad experience with them and they proved to be totally unethical this is the bottomline where a company fails to impress the clients, your business model.
Click to expand...

Read the post and then reply.

I stated that 1&1 is one of, if not the largest hosting company in the world.
It has nothing to do with the quality of hosting they provide.

To say there is a "best host" host in the world is absurd.
There is absolutely no way to quantify it.
 
Lesli said:
It would be great if it were possible to build and maintain a scrupulously accurate, reliable database of web hosts with misleading claims, "trap" TOSes, and unreliable service. But the mechanics of maintaining such a thing (not even touching funding) are pretty daunting.
Click to expand...

I've breaking my head over this for a very very very long time. How does one create a reliable review system in which both parties (client and company) have a say? Where issues are resolved and where "ratings" will truly reflect the level of service of a company. I came to realize that its very difficult to achieve without funding and some kind of unionized industry organization.
 
http://www.hostingassured.findmyhosting.com/ -- this was a GREAT site years ago. It allowed people to review their host. The IP numbers were verified that the domain was actually WITH the host before the review went public. Hosts were unable to remove reviews (only comment on it). The system, while provided by a TOP HOSTS site, was actually pretty great, however in recent years their forms broke and they never fixed them. It gives a pretty good unbiased opinion as hosts are unable to edit anything - gives you a better testimonial.

As for best and worst - these are judgement calls. Much like I can't say that FORD has the worst car ever, and Chevy is the best truck. These are judgement calls. THOUSANDS of people love them, and thousands hate them, all for different reasons.

As mentioned, the more customers someone has, the more reviews you'll find (good and bad). People like to post BAD reviews more than good reviews. This is human nature. If you have 100 clients and you have 10 bad reviews, is that good or bad? 90% success rate is good in most businesses. So if you have 10,000,000 customers, and you have 100,000 bad complaints out there, isn't that still good?

As you see, a cut and dry list is hard to do. Spammers on the other hand, that's very easy to pick out. If they spam, they are blocked. End of story. But when someone claims there's a spammer, and there's no way to back it up, what can you do?
 
Then what is the meaning of this thread ? The OP asked some hosts to be avoided but this is going as whether blacklisting is needed or not, isnt it?
 
The result of the thread is that there is no way to judge WHY they should be on a blacklist, and that the notion of a blacklist is a bad idea. The thread explains why it's a bad idea and how it will not work.
 
inprogrammer200 said:
Then what is the meaning of this thread ? The OP asked some hosts to be avoided but this is going as whether blacklisting is needed or not, isnt it?
Click to expand...

inprogrammer200, the OP asked

JamesCWilson said:
This more of a request than anything, but would there be any way that we could try and compile a list of web hosts to avoid at all costs, and then sticky this topic, as a quick reference point for forum members?
Click to expand...

He's essentially asking that this thread become a "host blacklist", of sorts. That would have the same problems that have been brought up in this thread:

* who would check to make sure the complaints were valid, as opposed to just an ignorance-complaint (ie, complaining that the web host won't build and market the customer's web site, when that is not a service commonly provided as a part of "web hosting") versus slander (employees/affiliates of some other web host who just want to drive business away from Host XYZ)
* would the "avoid" notice have a lifespan? 1 year? 5? 10?

and perhaps most of all

* who determines which hosts would be listed here as "hosts to avoid"?

Even if it's a thread in a forum, the same problems exist in having / maintaining a single forum thread as having / maintaining a blacklist website or database.
 
This was only a suggestion I was throwing out there, although I do understand everyones viewpoints on this. What I was trying to aim at were hosts that were widely known to be scams,ripoffs, or just plain unreliable, and can be verified as such. Of course the opinions of just one or two disgruntled customers can't be taken at face value, but what of the hosts that have a majority of unhappy customers, or who have had negative reports filed about them to some kind of authority?

If nothing else, this topic is at least generating some discussion :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top