HHO Project

[jbiz718]

Do you think it would be possible for the HHO community to come together and work on a project as a whole.

Not sure what it would be, but something.

[DizixCom]

Certainly, there is a lot of talent floating around! A stone soup HHO project... Sounds intriguing...

[Robert]

I Can help. I can be the "you do this, and you do that, and you go there" guy!

[interactive]

Robert (Rodriquez) is the Cheif Indian ;)

Like I said in your other thread, it would be great to do some sort of a collective project, either non-profit or for profit.

[jbiz718]

I think thats a really good idea. I think if we can all come here and figure out or get a majority vote on a few ideas that would be great.

[DizixCom]

What's needed, or consistently overlooked? Or better yet, who would you like to dethrone or what exists that you'd like to obsolete?

Are you looking like a community / web site type of a project, an application, a new toilet paper dispenser than plays the tune to Raw Hide while dispensing? Ready, aim, point us in the right direction!

[KualoJo]

interesting idea. personally... i think it very much depends on what the project is. my skills in toilet paper dispension are ... well ... not at the forefront of the latest technology, lol!

[Alan]

Me starts work on hhscp (Host Hideout Server control panel)

[DarktidesNET]

I might be interested (I would work for free because I love you alll forever!) ... what would interest you guys ?

[Living Media]

I think that the best things for all of us, in general, would be:

* nonpartisan host "review" site
What would it provide us: a (hopefully) thorough review by our peers and by customers

What would it provide clients: a nonpartisan review and evaluation of services and features - that is, the review would be done by non-webhosts who are nonetheless familiar with the industry and can write for nonsavvy clients.

How might it earn money to stay alive: hosts pay a given amount to be reviewed. It's one amount, it's relatively small (somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20-$50), and it's the same for every host. Also possible: accept donations from site viewers ( ??? )

Why might it draw prospective clients: by providing an Amazon-like system for clients to review hosts; and by providing client-education articles (how to evaluate hosting plans, how to evaluate your hosting needs, how to react when things go badly / how to properly file a complaint, et cetera)

Unlike FMH, this would not be a "hosting search" site, but a "hosting company / provider review" site. Complimentary aims, with some overlap but not heavily so.

[jbiz718]

I like that idea, I remember a webhost guild once but I think it would be really cool for something like that.

[DarktidesNET]

Hmm, intesting. What do the rest of you think?

[101sales]

Sounds like a great idea - and each review that comes in will be thoroughly researched to ensure reliability.

If you charge for it there will be much more credibility.

Make this like a "DMOZ" project. The directory of all web hosting providers. No advertising, and no PPC stuff.

This will be based on relavancy - the host putting in their information to be listed in this directory will be able to enter only a couple key words or only their URL.

[DarktidesNET]

I don't think people would pay to view reviews... or do you mean people pay to be reviewed?

[Living Media]

Yes, pay to be reviewed. Not pay to view the site ;->

And yes, my original idea was to accept no advertising (unless any nonhosting-related companies wanted to advertise with us) and no pay-per-clicks.

Similar to the tutorials forum that allan was talking about, there would need to be several people who reviewed hosts, and several people who read over the reviews before they were posted. Same for the articles on buying / evaluating hosting.

I suggested that site visitors could be allowed to donate to the site, if they felt that it was effective, to increase the likelihood of the site's operating costs being covered. After all, once a host has been reviewed, it isn't all that likely that they'd want to be reviewed again for another year or two, if at all.

Though that could be another suggestion to make for hosts - have your site / service revisited again after one year or two, pay half the original price, it's a way to update your listing without having to pay the full review price. Put a limit on there, like "no revisits within a 364-day period" to keep people from having review after review after revisit after revisit.

Fully disclose the affiliations of all reviewers / parties involved in site content, so that people know ahead of time if there might be any bias.

Other thoughts / feedback: descriptions would be provided by editors of the site, not by the host; though the host can suggest. (Very much the same as DMOZ.)

Other ideas? Keep them coming, folks, I think we're on to something here.

[101sales]

Pay to be reviewed - or pay to have their site available for someone to review.

We'll need to begin by offering this service for free because there would be no traffic.

[DarktidesNET]

What if people interested in helping wanted reviewed? Wouldn't that be seen as unfair or impartial/biased etc

[101sales]

Anyone involved in the project will not be allowed to post reviews of their own service. That is the only way to keep this unbiased.

[101sales]

It will need to be democratic - a top moderator would be rotated. He would be the last reviewer the one that approves or disapproves.

This would decrease "favoritism" and would limit to some degree the bias of everyone. Each review would have the name of the reviewer underneath the review. This would show the public who reviewed this service and could point out a potential bias thus keeping the moderators in check.

[hostpath.com]

How do you review a Web host?

[Living Media]

Definitely - people wouldn't be allowed to review their own service. Sorry, I thought that would be kind of obvious...

The profiles of all reviewers, moderators, helpers, et cetera would be listed openly on the site. All reviews would have the name of who wrote the review, and who read the review over (2 or 3 people at least, and not working with / for the review writer or each other.)

[Living Media]

I would review a web host by describing their features available, describing their service, describing their level of support, how they answer questions, not just how quickly they answer questions, is their service good for newbies / experienced users / either, et cetera.

Maybe having people sign up for 30-day accounts, or whatever the money-back period is, and then writing the reviews? We'd need people who can make the initial payment, and who are good at writing / detail oriented. A real "secret shopper" kind of deal.

[DarktidesNET]

No, I meant, would they allowed to be reviewed by someone else.

[Living Media]

Oh - wait. I think I see what you mean. You're asking, would there be any way to prevent hosts from reviewing their own sites?

That's one thing that should probably be taken into account, yes - that client-submitted reviews be checked for veracity before being posted to the site. Or, if found, should these reviews be highlighted with "The host tried to review their own site, look what they posted"?

If your question is "would clients be allowed to add their comments / reviews once a host had been reviewed", then yes, at least I think so. No reviews accepted until the host has paid and the team has had time to review their site, though.

First come first reviewed for the reviewing process. No "scheduling", either: if a host pays for the review, and the reviewers happen to catch them in the middle of a major site redesign / service overhaul, then the host is reviewed as-is. That's just the way it goes. The bad with the good.

Also, I don't think that hosts should be allowed to "choose" their reviewers. Ideally, they won't know who is a real customer and who is a secret shopper.

[jbiz718]

Does this site have advertisments.

What will be reviewing and how do we grade xyz company.
Also different companies should have different criteria.

You can almost do this as a non for profit company.

[Living Media]

Advertisements? Not from hosts. Other kinds of companies? Don't know.

What will be reviewed: my original thought was "hosting companies - shared, dedicated, data centers, anything / anyone that provides web hosting on a commercial basis."

How will they be rated? Don't know. Probably we'd have to break it up into "quality of features", "quality of service", "quality of cost"...not sure. The review categories would have to be applied to all companies, though. Otherwise we'd have to start breaking up the companies into different sections, companies would have to decide whether they wanted to be reviewed as a dedicated provider, shared provider, what have you.

This should definitely be put together as a nonprofit.

[101sales]

No Advertisements - this must be completely unbiased.

It will have to be a non for profit company to begin with.

Lets take the FMH review questions and modify them a little to improve upon their relavancy.

And lets not forget - there must be a reason for each rating. Not just a bar that says 90%. There must be an explanation with the review.

We will need to know every aspect of the host from the type of server hard ware they use right down to the kind of coffee they drink (well, maybe not that far) :D

[jbiz718]

Here is my question

Regarding the review of a company who has a server at rackshack and the review of a company for instance who is rackshack.

Joe

[Living Media]

Since we're not merely reviewing technical specs, but support and specific package details / cost, other than stating where the company is hosted, I don't see a conflict.

People who would buy direct from Rackshack may not wish to buy a hosting account from another company. They would be in a completely different market.

Describing packages and features is easy. Describing their support and performance over a period of time is what's going to provide the most value to the target audience for this site.

Or are you suggesting that people affiliated with a company shouldn't post reviews of resellers of their own company? Seems a sensible precautuion to take.

[jbiz718]

im trying to bring up all topics,

That analogy is something we will face.

[DarktidesNET]

Hehe... no, that's not what I mean.

Example, I help out, does this mean Darktides is automatically eliminted from being reviewed, regardless if YOU/Anyone review it.

I'm not implying I'd review myself obviously ....

[Living Media]

Oh. You mean, if you work on the site is Darktides.net not able to be included.

I would say, no. The stipulations being:
* you would not be able to influence when / how your host is reviewed
* someone from your company should not write or edit the review

Obviously it would be nice if we could have it be utterly impartial; but the site has to purchase hosting from somewhere. It's also not too realistic to think that we'll be able to get Chicken and akash (who used to be hosts but aren't any more) to do all the work.

That's part of why the names and affiliations of the reviewers and editors should all be published openly: showing that yes, web hosts work on this site and contribute content. However, we don't review our own sites.

Of course, we should probably run this idea by some customers...the target end audience for such a thing. We might find out that they wouldn't trust such a site no matter how hard we worked to try and make it impartial. Either that, or they may have other good suggestions.

I might be able to get my clients to provide some feedback on something like this.

[DarktidesNET]

I see... well then. Why not skip the "charge people" and play realistically.... randomly pick the "hot host of the month" from WHT and the likes, act like you know nothing at all and sample them.

That's what I'd do... if someone knows they're being reviewed you can beat your bottom dollar they're going to work their ass off to get a good review, doesn't mean they'll always be that way .... ;)

[Living Media]

Ah, yes...but when they submit their host's name to be reviewed, they don't know who's going to review them, or exactly when. The signup could come on the same day. It could come next week. It could come next month. They don't know, exactly.

The reason I suggest "charge people" is that a site like this is going to need to have some income to keep the lights on - not a whole lot, but some.

If we had a system whereby someone who reviewed a host or two moved on to "editor" status for 4-8 months after the review(s) that they did were published, that would keep reviewers' names from being recognised. Using hosting staff, recruiting friends who want to be "secret shoppers" for the web hosting industry and paying some minimal cost per hosting review ($5 if it's acceptable?).

Plus, just scanning forums like WHT for the "hot host of the month" is only going to net a subsection of the hosting industry. (So would any directory, actually.) Almost any given publicly-viewable forum is going to have a higher number of lurkers than participants.

[David]

I think in the beginning you would have to do it for free, or very minimal charge, but then later could charge money once people find it a valuable resource.

[DarktidesNET]

You're going to only land a certain area either way... not many will want to pay to be reviewed, don't you think?

[jbiz718]

I use to own a hosting company and forum and now work for one, yet I have 3+ years of doing this now. It will be important to have past hosts on board.

[interactive]

Originally posted by 101sales:

Anyone involved in the project will not be allowed to post reviews of their own service. That is the only way to keep this unbiased.

I think the only way to keep it unbiased would be to only allow non hosts. Even if a host wasn't rating their own service they would still be biased, because the other would be a competitor. Know what I mean? All in all though sounds like a great idea.

[Linkin]

I agree. I had been looking into creating a site that would provide what you are proposing. The issues I came across were:

How to validate the reviewer (assuming visitors were allowed to post their reviews after the main review was complete)
How to ensure the host did not vote for themselves

As far as catagories, I would think something like this:

Shared
Windows
Reseller
VPS
Managed Dedicated
Unmanaged Dedicated (although these two could be combined, but seperate would be easier to search)
And so on...

I also think you should include a section on hosting tools as well, such as control panels. Basically for education.

If you use a # rating scale, I would recommend 1-5 as anything higher can become too cumbersome.

You could list on the site each reviewer involved and allow a little bio for each, that way the people searching the site have at least a little info on who the reviewers/approvers are.

As far as funding goes, depending on the type of content and reviews, advertising or affiliate programs could be utilized to offer hosting products, excluding those which are reviewed on the site. At first though, I don't think that would be necessary as the traffic would not be outrageous and I am sure hosts can come together to provide the space/bandwidth.

The only concern I have with the host paying to be listed/reviewed is that there are many hosts that do not visit here or WHT or the like. I wouldn't want to exclude them.

One thing I had considered as well was a "wall of shame" for those companies that commit fraud against their clients. I was contemplating the effect of such a feature and it's impact. I feel there is already too much negativity in the community, but also feel that it is up to the community to stop those who choose to take advantage of clients. There would obviously need to be some very strict guidelines to be added to that list as I would not want to hurt anyones legitimate business. Too many consumers blame their host for their issues, when the host has really done nothing wrong. It's just a very very thin line between the two.

I would be more than happy to participate and provide whatever I could to help make the site a success. I think many hosting companies will feel the same....our way of giving back to the community that supports us.

Just my 2 cents.

[interactive]

Another question that popped into my head:
If a host pays to be reviewed, they are going to work their butt off like others said to be good atleast while they were being reviewed. Then once the review was out they'd go back to being sucky or whatnot. I personally think it would be better if it was just donation funded. Which wouldn't be a hard thing at all, I know I'd donate in anyway I could either with web space, money or the likes.

[interactive]

By the way once a name comes up for this, let me know and I'll register the domain.

[interactive]

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
I agree. I had been looking into creating a site that would provide what you are proposing. The issues I came across were:

How to validate the reviewer (assuming visitors were allowed to post their reviews after the main review was complete)
How to ensure the host did not vote for themselves

From what it sounds like, it would just be a closed group of people who did the reviewing. It shouldn't be like a open review, because like you said some one could come along and vote for themselves.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
As far as catagories, I would think something like this:

Shared
Windows
Reseller
VPS
Managed Dedicated
Unmanaged Dedicated (although these two could be combined, but seperate would be easier to search)
And so on...

Good idea, I'm sure those could be broken down even more.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
I also think you should include a section on hosting tools as well, such as control panels. Basically for education.


Something like a FAQ database I think would work great. What do you think? It would contain broad categories such as Control Panels, Colocation Equipment, etc.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
If you use a # rating scale, I would recommend 1-5 as anything higher can become too cumbersome.


Ya, something like a "5 star system" where 5 stars is the best.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
You could list on the site each reviewer involved and allow a little bio for each, that way the people searching the site have at least a little info on who the reviewers/approvers are.

Exactly, maybe what their occupation is how long they've been in the hosting scene, how many hosts they've reviewed.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
As far as funding goes, depending on the type of content and reviews, advertising or affiliate programs could be utilized to offer hosting products, excluding those which are reviewed on the site. At first though, I don't think that would be necessary as the traffic would not be outrageous and I am sure hosts can come together to provide the space/bandwidth.

I have a high traffic web site, I've tried almost every affiliate program that's out there. To this day I have yet to find one thats not a sham, that has decent rates, etc. I'm sure we could all figure something out though, I manage quiet a few servers and could arange space if it became a problem (I'm not a host either).

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
The only concern I have with the host paying to be listed/reviewed is that there are many hosts that do not visit here or WHT or the like. I wouldn't want to exclude them.

Well initially I think most of the traffic would come from either here or the *other* forum. But eventually once the word gets out it should come from other places. I don't think that it will be a problem with hosts being excluded.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
One thing I had considered as well was a "wall of shame" for those companies that commit fraud against their clients. I was contemplating the effect of such a feature and it's impact. I feel there is already too much negativity in the community, but also feel that it is up to the community to stop those who choose to take advantage of clients. There would obviously need to be some very strict guidelines to be added to that list as I would not want to hurt anyones legitimate business. Too many consumers blame their host for their issues, when the host has really done nothing wrong. It's just a very very thin line between the two.

The one problem with this is that you could get a sue happy host, and even if it wouldn't be considered slander they could twist it to make it look like it was. So there would need to be extensive proof. I'm sure no one wants to waste their time in court.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:

I would be more than happy to participate and provide whatever I could to help make the site a success. I think many hosting companies will feel the same....our way of giving back to the community that supports us.

Just my 2 cents.

I think it will shape out real well :D!

[Linkin]

I agree about the sue happy, that's why I was so uncomfortable about that area...too many variables to create a disaster.

Just to make sure I have this right, there would only be one review per host? My only concern with that is each person favors different criteria when evaluating a site. Something that sounds great to me, may not to someone else. For that I would think a standardized review process would need to be followed outlining the criteria for each level of rating. You could also have 2 people review it to ensure a little more fairness, but then that creates twice the work.

I really don't know how you would want to approach the advertising. I am not a fan of it at all, and it seems that is all most hosting directories are....highest listing to the highest bidder. I would have no problem paying a "donation" to support the site. I do that now on another site so that I don't have to see all the advertising.

If the panel did (and I think it would have to) include hosting owners, there would need to be an "honor" system where you do not review a company where you are friends with the owner. That could lead to favortism as well. For example, if someone asks me for windows hosting, I refer them to a comapany I know will treat them right...I should not review that host. That's only fair.

Like you said, I don't think there would be an issue getting the storage/space, and since the reviewers would not be paid, I don't think you would really need to have a huge revenue stream.

[interactive]

Originally posted by ThrillHost:

I agree about the sue happy, that's why I was so uncomfortable about that area...too many variables to create a disaster.

Ya too many sue happy people out there (mainly Americans sadly).


Originally posted by ThrillHost:
Just to make sure I have this right, there would only be one review per host? My only concern with that is each person favors different criteria when evaluating a site. Something that sounds great to me, may not to someone else. For that I would think a standardized review process would need to be followed outlining the criteria for each level of rating. You could also have 2 people review it to ensure a little more fairness, but then that creates twice the work.

Don't know what the rest of ya'll think. But maybe something where we have say 5 people own them. One being a programmer/web developer, one a business owner, etc. I'm sure you know what I mean. I know it would be easy to create some sort of a rating system PHP/MySQL driven, so I don't think it's a workload issue (When it comes to building the site).

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
I really don't know how you would want to approach the advertising. I am not a fan of it at all, and it seems that is all most hosting directories are....highest listing to the highest bidder. I would have no problem paying a "donation" to support the site. I do that now on another site so that I don't have to see all the advertising.

Like I said just a "donation" page would do. I know that in the first year (got to be realistic) it wouldn't be too big of a deal.

Originally posted by ThrillHost:
If the panel did (and I think it would have to) include hosting owners, there would need to be an "honor" system where you do not review a company where you are friends with the owner. That could lead to favortism as well. For example, if someone asks me for windows hosting, I refer them to a comapany I know will treat them right...I should not review that host. That's only fair.

Very true. I think it would be good to have a "virtual hat" with say 50 reviewers in it (that would be filtered through to make sure they were worthy) and randomly pick out a couple with different backgrounds.


Originally posted by ThrillHost:

Like you said, I don't think there would be an issue getting the storage/space, and since the reviewers would not be paid, I don't think you would really need to have a huge revenue stream.

Right. There's not really a need for any sort of a income anyways.

[Rewdog]

Haha... Maybe people could donate money and suggest a company that they've been so they could show how horrible they actually are :soapbox:

[David]

Originally posted by interactive:

Another question that popped into my head:
If a host pays to be reviewed, they are going to work their butt off like others said to be good atleast while they were being reviewed. Then once the review was out they'd go back to being sucky or whatnot.
But if you say that they will be reviewed anytime from 5 minutes from now to a month or so, they can't put on a false front forever.

[interactive]

True but they could easily do it for a month.

[101sales]

I'm a firm believer that if you have problems in your hosting company they will show through and a reviewer will be able to pick up on it. If this becomes popular it could take months before anyone is able to review a company.
Thats the great part about it. The review will be completely random.
Included with the review will be a review of the site uptime. Preferably a free system that continually pings the server. Although this doesn't necessarily tell you server downtime caused by DOS attacks but it will give some insight into the stability of the network the server is located on.

[Living Media]

What I think should be noted, somehow / somewhere, along with the technical information:

* uptime (how many outages, how many were communicated in advance, how long were they, how much did they interfere with the user's site / site admin / email)

* server speed (actual measurable, and what the user sees / how the user feels - because many people can't easily relate to milliseconds)

* support (how fast, how thorough, how helpful, how relevant; do they answer just the question or do they go beyond)

* tools (what can users do with their site; how much individual power / direct control do they have; what popular scripts have problems, and how severe; how quickly do staff-requested changes made)

* usability (how easy to use is the host's site, client portion: billing, support desk, help docs, control panel, various tools)

If the site is going to be genuinely useful to the average consumer, things need to also be presented in a WIIFM format. How does XYZ benefit them or make their experience better, and so forth.

[101sales]

Yes - info must be idiot proof,

Anyone remotely interested in the hosting business should know how the host is preforming. We can have both the technical jargon section and the newbie section.

[Living Media]

Either that, or have it set up thus:

This host's systems are tech tech tech tech techity tech. This means that explain explain explain AOLspeak.

This will make for an easier read (no clicking back and forth), and will educate the general public better.

[jbiz718]

Does that mean that I can a moderator of this or no.

[Chicken]

Originally posted by DizixCom:

Are you looking like a community / web site type of a project, an application, a new toilet paper dispenser than plays the tune to Raw Hide while dispensing? Ready, aim, point us in the right direction!
I vote jbiz718 as the moderator of the new toilet paper dispenser that plays the tune to Raw Hide while dispensing. All in favor post a chicken. :chicken:


Sorry, it is 2:43 a.m. and this is my best attempt at light humor at the moment.

[jbiz718]

Do i just get the dispenser or the dispenser plus the toilet paper.

[Chicken]

Moderation duties include, but are not limited to, changing the roll when needed. Some scrubbing of the bowl may be required.



To apply, please fax your resume to 1-900-TOILET-6