Should There Be a Rule Against hosting?

[EnCiPh3r]

I have seen 0Day Webhosters Selling Yearly Packages?

And people Like Fool Buying.

So i suggest to add a clause that highest u can sell Packages if your site is up for that much amount of time

for Quarterly Your Webhost Shud be old for atleast 3 months and so on.

Ignore it on Monthly though.

EnCiPh3r Reviewed by EnCiPh3r on 6th Feb 2011. Should There Be a Rule Against hosting? I have seen 0Day Webhosters Selling Yearly Packages? And people Like Fool Buying. So i suggest to add a clause that highest u can sell Packages if your site is up for that much amount of time for Quarterly Your Webhost Shud be old for atleast 3 months and so on. Ignore it on Monthly though. Rating: 5

[EsotorisK]

Good suggestion, but I think people are smarter in this field to go for an yearly package.

Most web hosts are a big FAIL. Run by random kids and end up with scamming or flaws in there servers and services.

We cannot integrate this rule because there are few good and reliable hosts too who do have the capability to hold servers and services and are very professional.

[SuicidalMedia]

That's the biggest problem here, everyone thinks it's their right to offer their services here. Rule should be something like this: They would have to show proof to staff that they have indeed "servers" when they write in their thread: "Our servers our secured", even though the word they're looking for is "Our VPS is secured". KWWHunction hosting providers really lie too much. They get a VPS and start selling hosting. And when you tell them that they aren't web hosters, and that they're just resellers. They say: "Everyone started with a VPS". Well, Sherlock, not really. Some people invest in their business, to become a good web hosting provider you need to invest. You need to offer something that other providers don't.

[eLight]

It's something I am thinking about. I know over at WHT, a huge web hosting forum you have to be a member for so long and can only post so many times per week or something once you reach a certain post count. A similar system could work well here.

[duality99]

agreed with Jason there's people on WHT investing over 10k.

[Mr Happy]

Lots of experienced webhosters here lie too and I'm on about people who ye think are highly trusted. Well their not and tell lies when something goes wrong so everyone will feel sorry for them and think it's not their fault.

I'm thinking of throwing together a quick site like ddlrank but for hosting companies where people can really compare 99.99% uptime if it's what they really have.

[Loget]

I think the hosting section is already over-moderated. It's not the staff's fault that people are retarded and buy yearly packages from new hosting "companies".

[Daniel]

It's something I am thinking about. I know over at WHT, a huge web hosting forum you have to be a member for so long and can only post so many times per week or something once you reach a certain post count. A similar system could work well here.

Something like that should work very well .. I fully support this idea.

The hosting section on KWWH has been a real mess lately and we have to sort this out somehow ..

[Gavo]

When i made a site to sell hosting someone paid for 1 year.

1 month later I dumped the site but the client was hosted with 99% uptime for over one year,



But saying that most new hosts here would just not pay there server bills and let any customers loose there data

[Myth?]

Only quality Host should be allowed to advertised.