And The Award Goes To

[tomkohlt]

Official Announcement : BWH Inaugural Awards 2003

Oct 1st marks the official launch of BetterWebHosts Consumer Review.

The results for the Best Hosts are now official and valid until
Jan 15 2004.

The BWH Editor's Choice Awards 2003 for Outstanding Host
goes to :

FutureQuest

Congratulations & well done to Deb & the FQ Team.

BWH hopes to become a popular reference for folks
looking for reputable and reliable hosts.

We have no affiliate links to web hosts on our site
nor any ads.

BWH's aim is to eventually become a high traffic webstination
and that in itself will be reward enough for our efforts.

Suggestions and feedback are welcomed from everyone here at FQ.
If you know of a host who should be on the BWH List
email us : tom@betterwebhosts.com.

There's a BWH Awards logo which FQ is free to use with NO
obligations whatsoever.

http://www.betterwebhosts.com/editors-choice-best.htm

BWH - We are Neutral. Our initial list had FQ running a close 2nd
to Combustion. FQ was made a joint 1st after we found learned more about
the high-security hosting it offers.

Cheers from BWH!

;)

[Deb]

Thanks so much for considering FutureQuest Tom!

And a big thanks to those who took the time to say kind words about us! (the check is in the mail ;) )

It's becoming more and more difficult to receive reviews and recognition on the web due to the affiliations and paid for ratings. All of us at FutureQuest very much appreciate the efforts made by those who still consider the reality of the services offered and the honesty of the reviews provided as their foundation for giving public recognition.

Thank You!


Deb
- http://www.betterwebhosts.com/award.png :QTthumb:

[tomkohlt]

To Deb, the FQ CEO with a great sense of humor -

you're more than welcome.

And thank you for your kind words.

Adios for now!

:D

Have a Happy October Everyone at FQ!

[DogAndPony]

Hi, Tom...

I just tried to get to your site via http://www.betterwebhosts.com, but the domain failed to resolve (I'm on Speakeasy DSL and use their DNS). So, I did an NS lookup, found 216.67.238.116, and accessed the site there.

On your front page, it says:

"BWH's Googled IP

IP number of BWH has just been changed. If you tried to reach us via our Googled IP, it wouldn't have worked.

Our new IP is 216.67.238.116
A Unique IP gives you a very handy alternative for reaching your site.

Alternative Access To BWH is :

http://216.67.238.116/
IP address is valid until the next IP shuffle."

Is your IP address being shuffled on a regular basis? Does that mean Pegasus Web Technologies doesn't qualify as a better web host?

;) (Just kidding!)

Also... at http://216.67.238.116/editors-choice-best.htm

...you list Combustion first, and FutureQuest second, even though you have a ranking of "1" and a score of "95" for each one. So... Is it a tie, is FQ really in first place, or...?

...Bob

Bob West

[tomkohlt]

Hi Bob

Interesting post. :D

------------------------------q u o t e----------------
Is your IP address being shuffled on a regular basis?
============================

My host assures me it won't be happening anytime soon.
Yeah so sorry, Bob, BWH wasn't accessible either by name
or by IP on ocassion - I don't really know how bad it was.

------------------------------------q u o t e-------------------

Does that mean Pegasus Web Technologies doesn't qualify as a better web host?
==================================

Pegasus is the bandwidth provider for my host. (Think so)
Naw, the IP shuffling was the work of my host.
So Pegasus is in the clear.
Unless there're things happening in the background which
I'm totally unaware of.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
So... Is it a tie, is FQ really in first place, or...?
===================================
It WAS a tie.

If you check the page again, FQ is the ONLY champion host left.
BWH performed a Google Groups search on the other tied host
and made an immediate decision to drop the name
COMPLETELY from all pages of BWH.

As this thread is likely to get Googled, I shall not reveal what we found.

Anyone can verify by doing a search in G Groups -
just make sure it's the full name and also the name of the holding co.

BWH hated to take such a drastic action.
But we're merely protecting the integrity of our recommendations.

Are there other reasons?
Nothing else really.

The BWH List is dynamic - we've dropped 3 hosts
totally out of sight thus far
- all because we uncovered/discovered negative but
totally credible information about them.

The folks who make it to The Best category are SAFE
in their positions until Jan 15 2004 at the earliest.

UNLESS very serious issues such as hosting porn,
spamming and slow to take remedial action, serious downtime
reaches our attention.

We hope by enforcing such stringent policies, BWH will prove to be a
dependable and useful reference for host-seeking site owners.
Eh, as dependable as FQ!


Sigh, 2 days into our official launch and this had to happen.


%)


What this means, is

FutureQuest.net is now

BWH's one and only
Best of The Best Web Hosts!!!

:)


Great hosts are hard to find, if FQ clients know what we know
they would appreciate FQ a whole lot more.

Adios!

[DogAndPony]

Hi, Tom...

Thanks for making that correction...

...Bob

Bob West

[tomkohlt]

Hi Bob

A point of clarification

Host to my host is NectarTech.

The IP numbers seem to be registered to Pegasus.

Who's hosting BWH?

Shall remain a mystery until a good net sleuth can solve it.

Should be easy I guess.

[DogAndPony]

Hmmm...

Maybe dnsozhost.com?

Nah...

Maybe ehostsolution.com?

Maybe not. Too many resellers of resellers of resellers out there these days. Things can get very confusing.

That's why I like dealing directly with a company like FQ. :)

...Bob

Bob West

[tomkohlt]

resellers of resellers of resellers
----------------------------------------------

Hmm yeah mushrroming left and right!

---------------------------------

BWH's host
has been hosting since 1999.
But remains a very small player.
They're not a reseller - they've servers in the NAC and one in the Far East.

So Bob, how about a testimonial from you?
8}

BWH is still hoping for more from FQ clients.

[Jeff]

Host to my host is NectarTech.

The IP numbers seem to be registered to Pegasus.

BWH's host
has been hosting since 1999.
But remains a very small player.
They're not a reseller - they've servers in the NAC and one in the Far East.
Huh? It seems (to me at least) that you paint a very blurry picture of your own hosting arrangement whereas I would think a web hosting directory site would be crystal clear about such matters.

For example you say "seem to be registered to Pegasus"??? Either they are or they aren't and it makes it sound like you just discovered this rathern than having a clear picture on where your hosting provider was going to place your site. I guess you don't consider them to be a reseller because they are leasing dedicated servers or colocation space and then selling virtual hosting space and you would define a reseller strictly as someone who resells a server/bandwidth exactly as they have purchased it without further subdivision into smaller accounts?

Then you say "Unless there're things happening in the background which I'm totally unaware of." Well shouldn't you be the one who knows exactly who owns the IP's, why they were shuffled, etc. IP changes are a big deal and if a host is making a change without proper notification and justification or without the infastructure in place to do it transparently, that seems like a big issue a Web Hosting directory should be watching very very closely if it's happening on their own server. Again I know there was some humor in your post above, but it struck as me as a little too vague.

And as a final thought, either your site should be hosted with the best host on your list or you should have a good reason why not (for example for me it's simply cost - that's the only reason all my sites aren't with FutureQuest).

I don't mean to give you a hard time - I'm just confused by your vague answers to the above which seem not to be in sinc with your site's focus. Always like to see advice that's "do as I do" not only "do as I say" alone. Anyway that's my two cents...

I'm glad you featured FutureQuest - they are a very very good host and the only virtual hosting provider I recommend to everyone if their budget allows.

[Jeff]

One other thought - under Guarantees you list the host's Uptime Guarantee. In my experience, without details this means absolutely nothing and can be very misleading to newbies who simply go for the largest number without understanding that the number alone means very little.

1.) Hosts calculate uptime very differently and include different things in their uptime calculation. Some hosts count everything (with FutureQuest, for example, if the Internap and the Qwest links went down at the same time, which is extremely unlikely bordering on impossible, but using this for an example - that would count as downtime here. Other places use only their server uptime or internal network uptime whether or not anyone else in the world outside their datacenter can access your site. For example a web host using a single williams line when Williams experiences severe packet loss for 15 minutes might still say "our nework is up - that is outside our direct control so it doesn't count against our uptime gaurantee". Then there are the clauses like "any outage over 15 minutes is counted" which can still be very frustrating if there are a bunch of micro-outages due to a router failing or something like that which the host isn't dilligent in troubleshooting. And finally, there's "planned maintenance" which doesn't count. One host in the past who offered a "100% uptime guarantee" had a router fail. They said "we were planning on replacing that router tommorrow anyway, so this falls under planned maintenance and is not covered by our guarantee" even though there was no notification and the failure happened at an unscheduled time.

2.) And possibly most importantly, there is the follow-thru. For example, FutureQuest when they did have one short period of downtime several years ago credited my account under their uptime guarantee without my having to ask, having to catch them, or anything else - they acknowledged and credited all on their own without the customer having to do anything. Other less respectable hosts often require the customer to catch, report and/or document their site down in order to get any credit. So these hosts which my offer 99.999% are actually much less accountable than FutureQuest since they know they won't have to pay out a fraction as much since most customers won't be online and monitoring 24/7. Other hosts simply have in their TOS such a tiny amount they will credit per hour for downtime that even though they promise a very high percentage, again if they fail to meet it they will be offering only a few cents on the dollar to their customers so it's no skin off their back.

In general, I find most other web directories don't provide the quality information that I need to pick a host. I do like the fact that you place a lot of weight on customer reviews as I find that to be the best type of information. It would be nice in addition, however, if you could use external monitoring graphs for each of your picks to show the real uptime from various geographic locations over a 6-month period to each host rather than simply pulling an uptime number out of the host's hat which may appear to be, but which is not necessarily, an apples-to-apples comparison.

[tomkohlt]

Great post, Jeff!

Very much appreciate your thoughts and suggestions and valuable
insights.

You're the first to post a detailed critique of BWH site and that's
what we want. We'll post it as feedback from readers.

Parts of what you said pertaining to your experience with FQ will
appear as a testimonial as it makes a very important point about how
a host with integrity backs up on their uptime guarantee.

Few points raised merit a proper response and I shall do so later.

Soon!

[Andilinks]

I don't know Tom Kohlt from Adam. Never met him, spoke with him or had any dealings whatsoever.

That said, I want to suggest a possibility or two about his vague answers with regard to his own hosting situation.

There's possibility one, favorable:

He wants to remain objective and not seem to be promoting anyone because revealing his host *would* be a tacit endorsement.

Possibility two, less favorable:

He is not objective, wants to promote one host or another but wants to appear objective.

The fact that he says glowing things about FQ leads me to possibility one as the more likely. If FQ were actually behind this I think the question about who hosts BWH would have been thought through a little bit better...

If there is some other host that BWH wants to surreptitiously promote and they want to build credibility by first giving honest assesments then only time will show their true intentions.

For now I'm willing to give BWH the benefit of the doubt and assume possibity one, or perhaps there's a possibility three that I haven't considered.

In any case I wish Tom and BWH the best of luck with the new enterprise--other than this little "who host's BWH?" thing they seem to be off to a good start.

Andi <edit> coherence </edit>

[tomkohlt]

-----------quote ---- own hosting arrangement --------

Who Hosts BWH

A. We would love to say “BWH is proud to be hosted by

FutureQuest”. BUT…

1. We are neutral. And we must be perceived as such by

our readers or you could imagine them thinking “Hah, FQ is

their host! Makes me wonder if they’re as neutral and

objective as they claim to be.”

2. Cost & Convenience – the host we’re using has been

favorably mentioned in WHT ie WebHostingTalk forum but the

main reason BWH uses them is for reasons more having to do

with cost, being in the same time-zone, and being able to

pay them by check.



B. Blurry and Vaque

Intentionally so.

For us to reveal the ID of our host could be interpreted as

an indirect endorsement.

Reseller Defined

Every host without its own server hardware could be called a

reseller ‘cos they’re reselling space that’s not their own.

In common usage, folks see resellers as hosts who buy a

reseller plan for x amount of space and y amount of

bandwidth from say, a host like FQ and repackages it under

their own hosting label. So, a reseller is a

plan-repackager. They have little or no control over the

servers.

A host who rents dedicated servers from say Rackspace would

have to design his/her own hosting plans from scratch. He’s

not repackaging but one might rightly argue that he’s still

a reseller as he’s merely reselling server space. These

guys have a lot more control over how the servers are used.

A full-fledged web host would have its own datacenter.


Uptime Guarantees

I’m in absolute agreement with you on this point. How a

host defines uptime in their Terms indirectly reflects on

their integrity. Clauses such as "any outage over 15

minutes is counted" make a mockery of the so-called

guarantee and are created by hosts who wish to minimise the

hassles involved in compensating clients for downtimes. Deb

should be able to give us a first hand look at the mechanics

of downtime compensation. A lot more paper and admin work

is involved I can imagine. If several thousand clients are

affected, wow, it can get tedious. BTW , if you suffer an

hour of downtime, what’s the quantum of compensation? One

hour?

-----quote----- planned maintenance doesn't count ---

This is very very common. And reasonable enough IF and only

IF prior and sufficient notice was given. Otherwise, to

claim it’s planned would be laughable. “Oops, we forgot to

tell you….so we’re telling you now.” A host who does that

on a regular basis isn’t going to help its own reputation

anyway.

BWH View

A host who makes a big deal of their uptime guarantee at

least conveys the impression that he is serious about

uptime. Would a host offering 99% inspire confidence? Or one

who says "99.9% uptime. We guarantee it because we mean to

keep it!"

BUT we all know plenty claim 99.9% and deliver way below

that. That’s why BHW looks for “proven 99.5% uptime or

better.”

And in our BWH Awards page, in praising FQ we mentioned “Be

sure to check their prominently displayed uptime charts.

Impressive? But of course!”

And in our Ouch Reports, we feature user comments such as

these 2 below in bold to warn readers about how some hosts

handle their uptime guarantees :-

“... guarantee 99.5% uptime, however it seems more like

80%.”

“99.9% uptime guarantee is a joke - they guarantee nothing

and if you complain - they ignore you.”

Hosts who get comments such as these are clearly not

professionally run.

Also, it is BWH’s view that very slow servers are tantamount

to downtime. The thing to do in such instances would be to

cancel, pack your 'data bags' and migrate to speedier

pastures.

Next Topic - -------quote-----place a lot of weight on

customer reviews----

You can't beat an honest appraisal coming first hand from a

user. The more details provided the better it is.

But it’s our observation that customers are reluctant to

write reviews.

Some feel compelled to write when they’re upset with a very

bad host. A mediocre host? Maybe they’ll say “Tech support

was not so great but most of the time my site was up.”

Nothing much else to say, so they’d rather not bother

writing. At the other extreme you have over-enthusiastic

reviews like “Fantastic host! Excellent support!” which

offer no details or reasons why they regard the host as

being so fantastic. We are wary of such generalised

reviews. Firstly because they’re not specific and therefore

unhelpful. Secondly, it could be a ‘planted’ review written

by affiliates or biased individuals to make a host look

good. Or you could tell a client "Psst, write something nice

about us at the WHT Forum and we'll give you free hosting

for the rest of the year!"

If our observation isn’t true, sites like WebHostingRatings

would have a lot more reviews than they now have after so

many years in business.

A Good Review IS like "Evidence you can use in court"

So BWH looks for proof of reliability. We visit and search

forums. We search Google groups. And Google all the time

to look for feedback from users. The more recent the

better. A hero today could be tomorrow’s zero. We’re very

happy to be able to post very recent testimonials for our

winning host. Up-to-date reviews such as these give a lot of

weight and credence to our recommendations.


Your Suggestion ------ quote -----external monitoring graphs

for each of your picks to show the real uptime from various

geographic locations over a 6-month period------

Good idea. But execution might involve a lot more than we’re

ready for right now in terms of time and expense.

NetMechanic charges for this service. Alertra as well.

And different locations? Wow, quite beyond our present

resources to do that.

Conclusion

One reputable host we briefly recommended is a case in

point.

For years, they were OK. Minimal downtime. Then several

times this year they suffered outages. Down. Many hours. A

few months later. Down again. And the climactic event –

apparently a DDOS attack on a client site and WHAM, down for

4 days!!!!

After getting all these facts, we immediately dropped them

from our List.

My point? Monitoring can only do so much. The host I

described here was popularly recommended in alt groups and

anyone who signed up say in Jan 2003 would have assumed a

positive hosting experience based on the host’s then

existing uptime record.

The amazing thing is despite the series of outages, many

customers stayed put. Shows how much goodwill this host has

generated over the years.

BTW Has FQ ever experienced a DDOS? I remember Yahoo was

TKOed for days by one such attack.

I think people are more prepared nowadays for such

contingencies and I’m certain FQ had measures already in

place for just such an eventuality.

BWH Awards page quote “If you need high security hosting and

a bit more gigs than immediate phone support for your

dollar, then FutureQuest is your best host.”



BTW This thread as I predicted has been Googled :-
=====================================================
And The Award Goes To - FutureQuest Community Forums
... There's a BWH Awards logo which FQ is free to use with NO obligations whatsoever.
http://www.betterwebhosts.com/editors-choice-best.htm BWH - We are Neutral. ...
www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=15380 - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

================search BWH awards=====================

Thanks again Jeff

and thanks Andy, I'll reply your post a bit later

meantime in my part of Planet Earth it's time for bed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Sleepy BWH Editor, it's good night!