Continuing the discussion from Hosting recomendations & FOSTA:
This was mentioned in another thread, but I think it’s worth discussing.
My opinion is no. It seems to me there are quite a few issues associated with making any sort of hosting recommendations. It also makes more work for our community members if we are looking to actually assess the hosts and give them a “seal of approval”. And I think it is totally unnecessary.
CP is positioning itself as the business-grade CMS for professionals. Surely assessing your hosting requirements and researching options and choosing a host that best suits your needs is a business decision that people should be making for themselves.
Yes, but bloggers fall into this category as well. Users inevitably will need some direction. Talking from experience, even businesses most times don’t know where to begin, especially if they are going out and trying to make their own site.
We discussed this in one of the previous committee meetings (February 19th). The idea is to have levels of recommendations. The levels would be: reported working, tested working, recommended, and sponsor.
Thanks Wade. I hadn’t realised this had already been discussed. Makes me wonder though how many hosting companies are going to be assessed? Will they be in different countries? And in various price ranges? Will it include shared and VPS?
Seems like a huge job. I do like the idea of a “sponsor” category though, as this will bring in some income.
As of now it is hosting companies who have reached out to us.
We spoke about this too, but I can’t recall what we had decided. I think I had said we have to include both because most businesses when starting out typically use shared.
Also helps us with transparency because then users known when we have been paid for a specific listing. Of course, they would still go through the same testing, but that option is there.
More accurate, if I remember the discussion: We will be paid for the ‘sponsor’ designation, but hosts aren’t eligible to be a sponsor unless we’ve already placed them on our recommended list because they’ve met established criteria. In other words, hosts can’t buy a recommendation.
So what do sponsors get out of it? Sounds like they just end up on the same list together with all the other recommended ones?
We’re still working on that…
But we don’t want to end up with a situation where we’re recommending a sketchy webhost just because they offered us a wad of cash. Or where that’s the perception.
I should correct to say, we’ve not worked out all the details (we’re not actively working on it). It’s not at the top of the list of things to do.
Yeah…You don’t want to have say, Bluehost still up there as a recommendation because you’re getting paid. (don’t like Bluehost since EIG bought it)
I think sponsors get to be shown before others. It’s logic. For example in a dedicated section of the homepage. Other recommendations are viewable only by search.
Just like tourism portals like Venus and the like do. You pay premium, you get to stay in spotlight. You go with standard package, your property is listed but it get mixed with all the others.
My view is that the list of recommended (ClassicPress friendly) hosts should be kept separate from Adverts. On the same page, by all means, but not mixed. Then the list is a “trusted” list and the adverts can be taken with the usual pinch of salt.
Tourism portals, and other directories are commercial directories and are perceived as such, by most visitors, the more you pay the bigger your ad.
Hi Mark, and welcome to the forum. I agree that this isn’t like any standard commercial directory. It’s a tricky mix actually, if you want to present a “community service” type of listing but also blend that with some sort of sponsored link arrangement.
And this is another concern. What happens if a recommended hosting company gets bought out and goes downhill. What about if they are one of the hosts paying a sponsorship to be featured?
As long as I have anything to say about it: no EIG, no GoDaddy, nothing that looks or acts even remotely similar.
This is definitely a valid concern also. Hosting recommendations would indeed be a hard thing to do well.
Yes, definitely: the idea is that hosts have to meet our “recommended” standards before we can consider listing them as a sponsor.
Yes, that was why I was thinking don’t even go there. I would just make an area on the forum specifically to discuss hosting.
In Australia we have a very popular forum called Whirlpool and there is a hosting section: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/116 . Typically someone will come on and say: “I need hosting for my website” and the response will be: “What resources do you need? What’s your budget? Is it a very popular site with lots of traffic? Where are the majority of your visitors located? Do you need a lot of storage space? Is it a busy e-commerce site? Do you need a high level of support?”… and so on. You can’t recommend something until you assess all the requirements.
Or someone will say they are thinking of signing up with Company X and get told that Company X was bought out by CrazyDomains last year and the support now has a 3-day response time.
Would it be better to drop the word “recommended”. If a friend recommended a product or service to me, that would imply that they found the product good enough to endorse, and my response is based on my respect for them. My thought is that “Compatible Hosting” would be a more neutral title from ClassicPress’s stance with a rating score from forum users. This would separate ClassicPress from the endorsement or condemnation of any hosting.
Good point Mark. I think that’s why I have a problem with the “recommended” idea. Compatible is a much more neutral way to look at it.
Easier - all we would have to do is make sure there is one thread per hosting provider.
@wadestriebel I think creating a “Hosting” subforum under General Discussion would be a good idea, but I will leave the final call to you.
This was the original idea behind the “Recommended” category - a few of us would need to try out the product and generally agree that it’s worth recommending.
However, we haven’t had time to do this, which is another reason to pursue a simpler approach.
I agree. Given that there is already this issue to be aware of… SiteGround Auto-Updater and ClassicPress
There is going to be more stuff like this that needs awareness/discussion. It would be good to have it all in one place.
As requested: https://forums.classicpress.net/c/general-discussion/hosting-forum
I am closing this thread as we can move there now for further discussions.