Talk:Web hosting service/Archives/2012

Spam

This page, like Internet and some others, has become almost constantly plagued by spammers. I fear we'll be forced to protect it one of these days... --Joy [shallot] 21:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) saqib kia slkjp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.236.97 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam II

The links to free web hosting providers are a valuable resource.

That said Angelfire and Tripod are one in the same (one of them should be removed). Geocities should be modified to point to the free page; otherwise its nearly impossible to find. Netfirms should stay because they are one of the only free hosts left that allow CGI/Perl scripts.

The external links to discussion boards are also valuable.

I noticed that Web Hosting Talk bases their recommended hosts on ad revenue alone. The forum is useful though so this one could go eitehr way. HostHideout is good.

Just my two cents ... Jason

Hi, Jason.

The netfirms package is a loss leader for their paid accounts. Many (if not most) ISPs offer such accounts, but that doesn't justify their inclusion here alongside the three services (branded or otherwise) that most people turn to for (or associate with) free web hosting.

chocolateboy 20:02, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chocolateboy

The Geocities package is a loss leader for Yahoo's paid accounts. In terms of actual service the Netfirms free offering is superior to the others. I am not necessarily pushing for Netfirms inclusion, rather pointing out that Wikipedia should be providing useful links, not legacy links. As editors we should be using the products we recommend .. Jason

Hi again. Thanks for the Geocities info.

None of those hosting links are necessary, and the best way for the article to remain free of the imputation of spam is for recommendations of specific ISPs, free or otherwise, to be avoided.

As editors we should be using the products we recommend

We shouldn't be recommending products at all: this is an encyclopaedia article, not an advertorial.

chocolateboy 17:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, However the properties that make the Internet such a great medium for knowledge sharing are conducive to the addition of readily available third party examples, samples and related resources. You would be hard pressed to find a Linux definition that did not link to Redhat.

Wikipedia is an expanded Yellow Pages of sorts with entries and links to virtually every company and corporation on the planet. Good or bad. Hopefully we can keep it good. Jason

As far as I know, Red Hat doesn't have a history of spam, astroturf or stealth marketing. Having removed a lot of spam from Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say that web hosting providers, like porn sites, are particularly prone to these techniques.

Wikipedia is an expanded Yellow Pages

No, that's dmoz.

with entries and links to virtually every company and corporation on the planet. Good or bad. Hopefully we can keep it good.

If you mean spam-free then I agree. If you mean that we should endeavour to drive traffic to sites offering allegedly "good" "products" then I disagree. The pornography article doesn't recommend "good" porn sites, and Wikipedia is not a forum for encomium or original research.

chocolateboy 19:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spam III: Attack of the Clone

Hi Chocolateboy,

So we meet again. I posted the Web Hosting Handbook site in the external links because it is the first site I have found that talks about webhosting, contains excellent reviews, and more importantly DOES NOT contain advertising. This is a refreshing alternative to the Web Hosting Talk forum you don't seem to have a problem with - Web Hosting Talk is littered full-tilt with advertising (as I mentioned 2 months ago) and moderates down all comments that negatively impact their advertisers .... I thought this page on Wikipedia could point to something a little more informative Jason

Hiya.

It was launched two weeks ago. It has no community, no credibility and no authority. It's spam.

chocolateboy 09:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with CHocolatboy that a site needs to be established / credible before it should be condidered as a resource for Wikipedia users, however I also agree with the other poster that the WebHostingTalk website is basically a mess of advertisers with recommended hosts based on $$ and forums that seem to only talk about 2 or 3 companies .. the same ones that are advertising. I think that site was purchased by a webhosting company a while ago. It should not be included in the External Resources.

Theres a couple people using this comp following this thread ... ah well. In any event Chocolateboy you seem to be skirting the issue. You have been silent on the matter of WHT, albeit getting creative with this page. J.

---

I posted the Web Hosting Handbook site [1] [2]

I also agree with the other poster [3]

If you continue to engage in spam and sockpuppetry, expect to have one or more of your accounts blocked. [4] [5]

chocolateboy 19:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Add a link to Webhostingtalk?

Should a link to Webhostingtalk be placed in this article? It has by far the largest database of reviews and advice pertaining to web hosting. It can be a fantastic resource.

Chriskelvie 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was on there at one time... I'll add it again. Anyone who wishes to dispute please state your reasoning in here before removing. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tacke 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Webhostingtalk is full of advertising, make totally no sense to be listed even if is a good resource, is already on other side.

Of course WHT should be listed. They are the most well-known web hosting forum. Millions of posts, #1 google hit for 'web hosting forum'. As for web-hosting-top... Tacke has admitted that he owns the site, and he even replaced the WHT link with the link to his own site. Rhobite 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tacke to Rhobite Hi Rhobite,

Being a commercial and full of advertising site, WHT has a lot of links back. Just imagine how many peoples was getting from www.php.net (THIS is a real frequented site) where WHT was the sponsor site (listed from FIRST page)! plus is a pretty old forum site already. Of course became a frequented site.

So, being #1 in google for a 3 words search is logically. Also there are ONLY about 41,600,000 results which is a SMALL number of hits for being #1. (try "webhosting top" or "web hosting top" to see how many are)

BUT i see no connection from this wiki resource to this commercial forum. In my opinion #1 in google for such search is far away from being listed. Alexa has also no relevance, no idea why you are insisting with such irrelevant Alexa info. Google is only the one which really count.

Moreover, i did NOT SAY that www.web-hosting-top.com is my site, you are getting again confused, i insisted to add this site since is a real good resource WITHOUT spam and being commercial also recommended from a book!

So, on the other words you considered that a forum site is eligible to be listed here (without carrying about commercial or something else), in my opinion we should list in WORSE case, just REAL good and no commercial resources. I'm even wonder if you are not part of some guys which are promoting WHT since you are fighting in this way.

I agree with chocolateboy which said "We shouldn't be recommending products at all: this is an encyclopaedia article, not an advertorial." Also WHY choosing first "forum" site ? Can be "directory", "reviews", "top" etc .. So, i will wait here more opinions before going to remove WHT link, until now (read the hole page) seems like there are peoples against this WHT spam.

Btw, Rhobite stop explaining me to "stop it" when YOU are the one adding such spam resource to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacke (talk • contribs)

Pwashington (talk · contribs) is enganging in behavior similar to Tacke (talk · contribs), possible meat/sock puppetry. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-27 09:26Z

Tacke, you said that you founded web-hosting-top on your talk page - I guess I misunderstood you. Anyway, it doesn't belong in this article whether or not it is your site. As I wrote above, I don't think web-hosting-top is notable enough to be included here. However, Web Hosting Talk is easily the most well-known web hosting forum. I'm not affiliated with them, I just think it would be a useful resource for readers. Rhobite 19:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I think the DMOZ link should suffice - WebHostingTalk is full of a whole lot of ugly things. Aside from paid advertising, it's mostly frequented by hosts, and as mentioned here, there's a lot of ugly tactics in the web hosting industry from desperate start-ups. There are a lot of links to hosts there, but I would never tell someone to use it as a resource for finding one. -qwidjib0

Deletion of sites.

I find it strange when I add the site I've used to help me find several different host companies for clients, it's always deleted. It doesn't matter to me if you like or dislike the site for whatever reason, I'm a user and I have found it very useful, so I want the world or just anyone looking for a good site with good info about hosting to take a look. These people even answered my hosting questions for _free_ and gave me the real deal with a couple companies I was looking at.

So what if they make a commission off of less than 8% of the hosts they have listed. Good info + free question answering = a site people should visit.

I suggest the people who think they own this topic who delete anything they didn't add take a look at other wiki topics which allow links to commercial sites IF they offer a unique service!

I'll also be checking if the people doing the deleting have a vested interested in deleting good sites. I won't say any names but we all know who that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwashington (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. There are numerous editors who will revert links to commercial hosts or commercial referrers. If there are other article that have similar commercial links, those should be reverted as well. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for Jamie here. By the way, your implict threat ("I'll be checking...") is extremely bad form. Here at Wikipedia we assume good faith about other editors. · rodii · 13:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What site do you add and get removed? Curious. Wikiclassifieds is a good place though. I added a free webhost there and i get a referral about once every 2 days. not bad for a free classified ad!

Add a link to hostin.org?

Just started a blog on web hosting, its not a front for any web hosting company. Has a couple of useful how-to articles, and I'm about to add a wiki for users to post their own, as well as reviews and thoughts on individual companies.

The link is hostin.org, perhaps consider it for inclusion? Thanks. --andrew leahey 18:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your (AdSense-using) blog. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL for further info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Web hosting service market continues to develop every day, while the services offered become more complex to meet the requirements of all businesses. There are thousands of Web hosts in existence, and many have similar packages available, in this unstable environment, it is important to be able to locate which ones have the most accessible technical support or the strongest security measures and rapidly research your options before you waste your hard-earned money on the wrong provider.

A valuable Website Hosting search was created in order to offer truly independent hosting Websites to help visitors find the way through the tangled "hosting jungle" that subsists today. WebHostingPlans Search will definitely assist you choosing what the correct Web Hosting Company is for you.

Classification

What kind of host does https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ count as? Since it only charges as much as you use, it's flexible and I'm not sure that it would fit in any current category. Perhaps a new one should be made. 70.111.218.254 15:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of revert by IP

I've done a partial rollback to a previous version by, well, me. I removed the html comments about "DMOZ being ok" because it was not accurate. The remaining link to DMOZ follows the guideline, the removed ones do not. Links sould be kept to a minimum, and reviews are almost never appropiate regardless of their open directory nature.
152.91.9.144 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Uptime statistics with no citation

I've reworded it so it's no longer talking in second person, but there's no way wikipedia can accept statistics like this with no source. Richard001 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the uptime percentages offered by providers, over a given year the following would be seen:

• 100% - 0 hours 0 minutes
• 99.9% - 8 hours 46 minutes
• 99.5% - 43 hours 50 minutes
• 99.0% - 87 hours 39 minutes
• 98.0% - 175 hours 19 minutes

Citing Sources

When I try to edit an article I often use content from other web sites.

In order to :

• Credit a source for providing useful material and to avoid claims of plagiarism, • Show that my edit is not original research, • Ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor, • Help users find additional information on the topic, • Reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.

I need to cite a source, but when I add a link to the source I'm being warned of spamming because adding a link to a web site source is considered advertisement.

Please help me understand how to cite a content from a certain web site and to avoid advertising at the same time. Would making a simple reference to the web site source which is only text and not a link be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.96.209 (talk • contribs) 4 Aug 2007

Internet hosts

CIA World Fact Book claims there are less than 4 million Internet hosts in the USA (about one-tenth of Japan) in 2007. [6] Is it true?

CIA defines a Internet host as a computer connected directly to the Internet; normally an Internet Service Provider's (ISP) computer is a host. [7]

Anwar 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the description is up-to-date, given that they talk about "hardwired terminals" and "institutional mainframes". The description would include everybody on an DSL/cable internet connection. Netherlands (16M inhabitants) is listed with 11M hosts, which would include all household and office computers. Weird that the US is listed with just 4M hosts. Han-Kwang (t) 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA lists almost 200 million Internet hosts in the USA in 2005 (about 9 times that of Japan).[8] This seems lot more reliable.Anwar 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it really free?

I've read and heard a lot of rumors that Wiki editors are owned by external companies who pay them to make sure that no one else gets on the popular lists. What do you guys thinks about that? I've posted relative non-spam links to categories before and they are almost instantly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.229.106 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source for that? I'm still waiting for my first check. --CliffC (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in a public discussion forum for memebers only which I cannot post. About that first check though...hehe. It's like what has happened to DMOZ - it's almost impossible to get a ligitimate site listed in a sensible period of time. Who is WIKI really benefiting if not the companies it's hosting in it's articles. Why are they getting first preference? Shouldn't all the selection process be an open discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.229.106 (talk • contribs)

Generally speaking, we don't allow any commercial links in articles like Web hosting. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~~~~

So, there is no source for your theory.

Another editor posted an explanation on your talk page, you should read it closely, and I just now posted a "Welcome" template there so you can read the material at its links and learn how Wikipedia works. --CliffC (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate that. I did try to post a commercial link in the past. It's funny that Wiki has no follow tags but getting a link in here makes me jump 20 pages in google Serp. There are however thousands upon thousands of commercial websites listed in Wiki with "legitimate" articles. Unfair? 99.228.229.106 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I also run completely free article submission and distribution site that I listed in the ezine page. Link was on for a few months and then someone deleted it. It's a great resource, one of the best of the net and yet it's not deemed worthy - articleammo.com. 99.228.229.106 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at this: it's loaded with commercial links to their website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aplus.Net I just don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.229.106 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right and I've removed the spam links from that article; but what makes you think that just because the rules are broken in one place that there are no rules? I'm glad you spotted the problem at APlus.Net but that isn't relevant to the links you want to add to articles. Gwernol 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that Wiki should offer some sort of Directory which will drastically reduce spam links or include a few top review resources like www.webhostingrally.com. These site might be commercial to an extent but they truly do customers a huge benefit. Let's all face it. It's not cheap to get on the home page of Google 99.228.229.106 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent that your IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "Wikipedia is not a directory", "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted.--Hu12 (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hosting links

I'm a bit new to this but are we allowed to add hosting companies to this listing that we use? I've been using http://www.uk2.net and was going to add them, not sure I've figured out this yet but is this the right place to ask if I can modify an entry? I think I'm doing the edit syntax right for adding the post I've been reading. (41.232.210.53 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Please don't add links to hosting companies. Wikipedia isn't a directory or collection of links, folks can use Google or another search engine if they need to find a web hosting service. --Versageek 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a link to the Open Directory Project (using the {{dmoz}} template) be appropriate? --Ixfd64 (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

refimprove tag

Apparently 78.105.139.244 (talk · contribs) doesn't feel that a {{refimprove}} tag is appropriate on this article. Two editors (including myself) disagree. The article only has one reference to support the fact that "personal web hosting" can be done on a Mac. All other claims in the article remain unreferenced. The tag is necessary. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment

Came by here looking for information to pass along to my wife who is about to set up her own web site. I wanted to explain some of the basic concepts to her. I find it strange that there are no links to the concept of Domain Names.

Thanks for listening,
Al Weiss
San Diego, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.154.145 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC) A web hosting service is a type of Internet hosting service that allows individuals and organizations to provide their own website accessible via the World Wide Web. Web hosts are companies that provide space on a server they own for use by their clients as well as providing Internet connectivity, typically in a data center. Web hosts can also provide data center space and connectivity to the Internet for servers they do not own to be located in their data center, called colocation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.224.248 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) areki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.24.157 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing useful links?

I posted several reputable web hosts, and somebody keeps deleting it for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg0896 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several good reasons why external links to specific web hosts are always removed from this article. The reasons are given in the note you received on your talk page, as well as discussed on this talk page. bonadea contributions talk 06:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Established web hosts should be linked in this topic. People need to know which web hosts they can trust. -Dg0896

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Other websites do that sort of thing, Wikipedia doesn't. --bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)