Reseller "All in One Package" Discussion

[thor]

I can't wait for additional news features - (perhaps literally), since I need to make some decisions before end of year about moving a bunch of sites from another host to FQ). So, just asking: Will there be anything that will make the process of hosting multiple domains on one account easier and practical (sorry, IR's don't cut it for us)?

Please please please!

[phppete]

So, just asking: Will there be anything that will make the process of hosting multiple domains on one account easier and practical (sorry, IR's don't cut it for us)?

Please please please!

Yeah what a great idea. I reckon FQ should be like the other hosts, ya know, where you pay $20 a month for 1GB disk space and 20GB of bandwidth. Then we could host multiple domains on one account, maybe we could even become hosts ourselves by splitting up the space and sell it off in 20MB chunks. Oh please, please FQ, please degrade your relibility, please, please be like all the other hosts and make my server load go over 100 at least once per day.....

Why do people just not get it. :dunno:

[thor]

Oh please, please FQ, please degrade your relibility, please, please be like all the other hosts and make my server load go over 100 at least once per day.....

Why do people just not get it. :dunno:

You're right. Some people don't get it, and you aren't. I'm not looking for cut rate hosting. I simply want a convenient and practical way to host my 6-7 active websites, so I can take advantage of the resources I purchase, and not waste them. I want separate cgi-bins for each site. I want them separate.

And I'm willing to pay a premium price.

Finally, I have no idea why you think that having 3 or 4 small websites under one account is going to be significantly more server intensive than 3 or 4 separate accounts, or 3 or 4 IRM setups. Please explain.

Now, what did you Momma teach you about having nothing good to say?

[phppete]

No, I get it, you don't. You were/are requesting hosting multiple sites from one account so lets not change the meaning of your original post.

Once again the line 'so I can take advantage of the resources I purchase, and not waste them', just about says it all.

If you join a gym do you stay there from opening until closing so you can 'take advantage of the resources you paid for'?

If you go to a bar that has a pay '$20 and drink as much as you like'

-- final mod edit --

When you eat out at a carvery where you can go back for more without paying extra do you fill your gut until you explode

-- final mod edit --

You don't get it because you don't get how hosting works and it doesn't work by everyone using every last drop of resources they can find.

-- final mod edit --

Mod Note - edits must remain or post will have to be removed. We need to keep it friendly.

[Snarpy]

Pete,

Please be civil.

Besides the excellent hosting here, the generally well-mannered and helpful community is a major attraction. There are other ways to express your opinion without resorting to this type of language.

Snarpy

[Deb]

I want separate cgi-bins for each site. I want them separate.

And I'm willing to pay a premium price.

Finally, I have no idea why you think that having 3 or 4 small websites under one account is going to be significantly more server intensive than 3 or 4 separate accounts, or 3 or 4 IRM setups. Please explain. Just to clarify this...

There is not a new "one size package fits many" option on the table for the immediate future. Packages that require completely separated functionalities will in fact still require separate packages to function as such. IRMs et al will also still be available as they are now for packages that don't mind sharing the CNC and stats etc...

Everyone has wants, wishes, requests, and even demands. What I can tell you is that FutureQuest will always do what we are reasonably able to do to please as many as we can at a time. The goal is always to ensure quality services while providing as much as we can to keep the costs as economical as possible without getting trapped into the "who can have the reddest line at the end of the year" wars.

We've been successfully servicing accounts since the beginning of 1998. Hopefully we've gained enough trust since that time for Site Owners to know that whatever we do, or don't do, is based on sound planning and decision making. Sometimes it means saying no, even when we want to say yes, and other times it means saying yes to more than was even requested. In either case, it's what allows us to still be looking forward to yet another year servicing those that are able to successfully work within our offerings :) Many of you have sites hosted elsewhere because we are not able to provide what those particular sites require. We certainly understand that and simply hope that someday our services will be enough to entice those sites to get on a FutureQuest of their own...but by no means are we ever going to base our decisions on the sole purpose of seeing how much of the internet we can host on one server :P

Deb
- I'll never forget the time Terra almost snagged the "Got Milk" campaign .....

[phppete]

Deb,

I said the same thing albeit in a different manner yet my posts get censored, go figure :umm: .

Anyway on a similar topic, you have to know that some of us have had horrific hosting experiences in the past until we came here. This is mainly because every host tries to compete with every other host and while the 'usual suspects' think they are getting a great deal the losers are actually everyone.

The fact that MT was allowed to bring down a server(s) just shows clearly that you (FQ) are far too relaxed these days. MT is one of the reasons I left my previous host, the rebuild.cgi script was almost always responsible for high server load and server CPU Idle at 0%, let alone these new comment spamming problem.

Forgive me if I don't seem appreciative of your xmas offerings but just look at the recent threads, give them an inch and they take a mile.

Let us hope next year we see the same reliability and service, somehow I think, by offering more, you will need to be magicians to achieve that.

This is my last post in this thread since I don't like to be censored without just cause.

Pete

[Webmarm]

add/remove domains and sub-domains, apportion bandwidth and diskspace etc. without having to be asking Fquest to do it for you

< clutches tummy> Agh, reminds me of ... cPanel ... </clutches tummy>

I get jazzed on other boards that I pay for setting up subdomains and IRM's. I had the pleasure of one host allowing all that stuff in the control panel (not cPanel, but I've blocked the name of the control panel from my memory like a bad nightmare). That shared server didn't last long.

Many of you have sites hosted elsewhere because we are not able to provide what those particular sites require.
Well, some of us only host a few sites elsewhere as a token gesture of diversification of hosting. And every month think about the fact that if the site gets any more important in the scheme of things it has to be moved to FQ.
:dopey:

[TVB]

Many of you have sites hosted elsewhere because we are not able to provide what those particular sites require.

There's other hosts? :umm:

There's only one in my world :bow:

Thanks FQ for the added features! I'm looking forward to seeing other 'gifts' get put under the tree bit by bit.

Betsy

[Deb]

I said the same thing albeit in a different manner yet my posts get censored, go figure
...
This is my last post in this thread since I don't like to be censored without just cause. I left your post so that your opinion/point could be heard. However, what I removed, that was in fact different, is the direct insults. I've always felt discussions are worthy when people with a variety of opinions join in... some of the Team's best results were born from heated debates. What I wont allow is any direct insults. There's just no need for them here so I pulled those. I hope that helps to clarify. Anyway on a similar topic, you have to know that some of us have had horrific hosting experiences in the past until we came here. This is mainly because every host tries to compete with every other host and while the 'usual suspects' think they are getting a great deal the losers are actually everyone. There is absolutely merit to that observation... heck it's fact. We have to walk a fine line everyday in an effort to FIRST ensure we CAN provide what we offer while also ensuring that we still have clients left to provide it to :) The fact that MT was allowed to bring down a server(s) just shows clearly that you (FQ) are far too relaxed these days. MT is one of the reasons I left my previous host, the rebuild.cgi script was almost always responsible for high server load and server CPU Idle at 0%, let alone these new comment spamming problem. MT can bring down a server in a matter of seconds..as can a number of other scripts. Relaxed we are not. We are constantly working on ways to prevent such events and ensuring we are alert and ready to deal with them when they do occur.

To ensure your computer cannot be hacked... unplug it.

To ensure you do not receive spam... close all email accounts.

To ensure your heart never gets broken...never love..

etc etc etc... The only way we could ensure a script isn't permitted to get out of control is to remove the ability to install scripts at all.

I assure you we are not being lax... we are simply trying to be realistic so that a workable solution, for all involved, is found. It's important that we think before we leap to prevent bigger problems. Forgive me if I don't seem appreciative of your xmas offerings but just look at the recent threads, give them an inch and they take a mile. We're used to it :P The requests are what create and prioritize the to-do lists. The longer the list, the longer it'll take for items not right at the top to be completed. Simple as that. Because we don't like to "slap things together". Let us hope next year we see the same reliability and service, somehow I think, by offering more, you will need to be magicians to achieve that. I've not forgotten a single person who has questioned my ability to keep this company afloat for another year. There were MANY of them in 1998... several more when we setup our own data center, and at least one or two each year thereafter. You've just gotten on my Christmas Card list for 2005 Pete :rasberry:

Let me introduce you to the FutureQuest Team
:QTFQuest: :QTwand: :QTwand: :QTwand: :QTwand:
well you get the idea :P

Sure we'll have our ups and downs, just as we have in the past... but unlike many of the hosts that cause nightmares for the site owners...we try to learn from our mistakes and find ways to improve rather than repeat :)

Deb
http://aota.net/4F/powerqt.gif

[phppete]

I've always felt discussions are worthy when people with a variety of opinions join in... some of the Team's best results were born from heated debates. What I wont allow is any direct insults.

OK, I didn't see my comments as insults.


To ensure your computer cannot be hacked... unplug it.

To ensure you do not receive spam... close all email accounts.

To ensure your heart never gets broken...never love..


OK, point taken :)


I've not forgotten a single person who has questioned my ability to keep this company afloat for another year. There were MANY of them in 1998... several more when we setup our own data center, and at least one or two each year thereafter. You've just gotten on my Christmas Card list for 2005 Pete :rasberry:

I'm not questioning your ability, I'm just suggesting that you have a hard task of controlling what people run on the servers.


http://aota.net/4F/powerqt.gif

I think he needs 200mg of oxymetholone a day :rasberry:

[Deb]

I think he needs 200mg of oxymetholone a day :rasberry: http://www.picolio.com/Albums/album54/roflmao.gif

[rossH]

Well, personally I hope FQ never develops any kind of reseller ease of use. I explored the reseller option years back, and finally decided I could serve my clients better as a developer by telling them where they were hosted, and making sure I was proud to tell them.

Of course, I'm a developer, and so I expect to make more from website work than monthly hosting fees.

I have some low-end and bad-neighborhood developments out on other hosts, but everything real comes here. FutureQuest is perfect for most client needs, I find, until site growth dictates a dedicated server.

I think it was J. Paul Getty who said, "Put all your eggs in one basket - and WATCH that basket closely!"

I've been watching FQ for a long time - never yet seen it blink

[phppete]

Well, personally I hope FQ never develops any kind of reseller ease of use.

I totally agree. *Every* host that offers this unlimited domains under x resources is a pile of crap. You may have been with companies like MCHOST, Ventures Online and all the others doing the typical reseller thing. Even Ventures Online who are *supposed* to be a good host couldn't keep control of their bulk reseller servers.

I closed down my web hosting business because it was obvious that kind of business model is doomed from the start.

[rossH]

I concluded that if you're going into the business of hosting, that's the business you're going into, and you'd better do it full-time, and seriously.

I think it's a decent business model in itself, but as a sideline for people who do web work predominantly, I think it's too much hassle for too little fee.

Far better to have a robust hosting company, I found, and share the password with the client, and charge individual fees for config work and such.

And sleep at night, knowing that Terra never does :)

[phppete]

After my hosting nightmares I no longer involve myself with any hosting.

My work is web dev also but my clients are web designers so they sort out their own hosting for their clients. Thankfully one of my clients hosts her sites here.

[dank]

Hey! What's this anti-reseller crud going un-countered?

I probably average 2x per year that one of my clients has a hosting support issue that would otherwise have gone to FQ. In my mind, that's a near non-issue. Certainly not a big enough one to pass on their re-sold hosting business, especially when they would rather do business directly with me instead of introducing another party into the loop.

Now, if FQ's service weren't so stellar, I would think twice about being the middleman.

Dan

[Monty]

Well, personally I hope FQ never develops any kind of reseller ease of useHuh? How much easier does it get than doubling your money? With the no brand CNC already in place and more things coming down the road, it's a pleasure to resell here and always has been. It's not like I am hot swapping drives at 2AM. I won't even work for a client that doesn't host here. One or two times a year, I do get a support request, but that's not a big deal in my mind.

[rossH]

dank, it wasn't anti-reseller, just anti-cpanel, it was meant to focus on the low quality of the server-stuffing hosts out there.

I kind of surmised from other posts that the main complaint was, FQ doesn't have all the bells and whistles that the cpanel people have, and I was only saying, please don't ever go that route.

Quality was the issue rather than the reselling model, although my remarks on the model certainly apply to me, and others like me who simply don't want to purport to be a host.

For the record, people still feel like they're doing business with me, they know I have my own properties here too, they accept the reasoning in letting professionals be the host. In fact it looks like I get more support calls than either you or Monty (!) - most clients don't even want to go into the CNC, they want me to take care of those things for them.

I would be nervous hosting people who were all over their account doing webmaster things - but Monty you're making it sound like FQ has it pretty bulletproof. In fact, you both make the point that reselling is easy at FQ (versus anywhere else on the Web).

maybe I should revisit reselling... ;)

[Jeff]

The only problem I see with off-the-shelf control panels is that they allow anyone to buy a $99/month server and setup a hosting company... and then after they've signed up lots clients at $5/month you see the host asking a question like "how do I upgrade apache" or "Is a 15-minute load average of 69.00 a problem for my celeron" usually referring to that as "cpu usage of 69.00". On the other hand, some of the reseller features and having control of your own DNS is a nice feature that if implemented correctly and carefully could be very handy.

[phppete]

Hey! What's this anti-reseller crud going un-countered?
Dan

Reseller means where a host gives you for example 1GB of disk space, 20GB of monthly b/w and you have something like WHM/Cpanel to divide that up to how ever many separate accounts you wish as long as you don't go over your resources. Many hosts do this and charge around $25 a month for 1GB space and 20GB of b/w.

The end result of setups like this is awful server reliability, loads of downtime, a load of server load spikes and dreadful overall service.

FQ's 'reselling' is not a reseller system it is an affiliate plan so 'reselling' means two different things to different people.

Many have asked FQ in this thread and others if they can have a CPanel/WHM (Web Host Manager) style setup. If this were to happen I would immediately close all my accounts because any host that allows this obviously doesn't care about their customers.

So when 'reselling' gets a bashing it is for good reason, don't believe me then go and try out Ventures Online, MCHOST, Voxetreme and all the others you will find on webhostingtalk.com in the reseller section.

When you have been through this kind of hell you will do anything to ensure your current host doesn't adopt this 'recipe for disaster'.

[PaulKroll]

(Checking Christmas list)
Superbit Spider-Man 2 to Dan... check...
Copies of "Code Complete" "How to write secure code" and "Writing Solid Code" to PHP developers, in Terra's name... check...
Bag of decaf coffee to Phppete... check!

[phppete]

(Checking Christmas list)
Superbit Spider-Man 2 to Dan... check...
Copies of "Code Complete" "How to write secure code" and "Writing Solid Code" to PHP developers, in Terra's name... check...
Bag of decaf coffee to Phppete... check!

Coffee is for beginners, real coders use ephedrine don't they... :wowwee:

[dank]

Reseller means where a host gives you for example 1GB of disk space, 20GB of monthly b/w and you have something like WHM/Cpanel to divide that up to how ever many separate accounts you wish as long as you don't go over your resources.
Not when you're on a FQ message board and don't specify all of the above...

(Checking Christmas list)
Superbit Spider-Man 2 to Dan... check...
Argh! And here I thought last year's bag of coals was rock bottom.

real coders use ephedrine don't they...
Only if they want an exploded heart. Been there, don't do it.

Dan

[Webmarm]

Many have asked FQ in this thread and others if they can have a CPanel/WHM (Web Host Manager) style setup. If this were to happen I would immediately close all my accounts because any host that allows this obviously doesn't care about their customers.

Ditto.

Ewww, that's the name of the panel I blocked from memory. CPanel was bad enough, but WHM....

[John Kennett]

Reseller means where a host gives you for example 1GB of disk space, 20GB of monthly b/w and you have something like WHM/Cpanel to divide that up to how ever many separate accounts you wish as long as you don't go over your resources. Many hosts do this and charge around $25 a month for 1GB space and 20GB of b/w.

<snip>

Many have asked FQ in this thread and others if they can have a CPanel/WHM (Web Host Manager) style setup. If this were to happen I would immediately close all my accounts because any host that allows this obviously doesn't care about their customers.

This model of reselling isn't a problem in itself. Overselling resources is the problem, and it doesn't matter whether it's to resellers or individual users. If you have sufficient capacity for resellers to use their GB of disk space and 20 GB data transfer then it's fine.

The companies that have some to grief have done so because they haven't charged enough for them to be able to provide what they have committed to.

If FutureQuest were ever to offer this sort of programme then I would have absolutely no doubt that they had done their sums and that they could do it well. I guess that it would probably cost a whole lot more than £25 a month though. :yeah:

John

[rossH]

This model of reselling isn't a problem in itself. Overselling resources is the problem, and it doesn't matter whether it's to resellers or individual users. If you have sufficient capacity for resellers to use their GB of disk space and 20 GB data transfer then it's fine.

The companies that have some to grief have done so because they haven't charged enough for them to be able to provide what they have committed to.

If FutureQuest were ever to offer this sort of programme then I would have absolutely no doubt that they had done their sums and that they could do it well. I guess that it would probably cost a whole lot more than £25 a month though. :yeah:

John


I think you have nailed it - well put, thank you :)

once you discard "reselling" as the evil and change it to "overselling", then arithmetic does become possible.

If you can constrain the number of users in a pooled-resource group, and tie it to a packaged hosting plan - then yes FQ really could consider the model, and do it with the assurance of reliability. And at a stable price.

[phppete]

You've missed the point guys, here is the typical scenario that happens all the time.

Mr X signs up for a reseller account, lets say 1GB Disk Space and 20GB of b/w. Mr X is an active member in a forum he sells of this space as he is entitled to with this type of plan to 50 customers who all want to run a MT blog. So over night you now have 50 MT blogs on the server all bashing the hell out of it with MT's nightly rebuilds.

Poor Joe Smoe wonders why his site is down every day for 20 minutes around the same time and wonders why load spikes are now common.

Since FQ with this type of plan would have no idea exactly how many individuals are using the server they have less control.

Another scenario, one of these customers also an active forum member on some big board uploads a 5MB movie for all his buddies to download... before you know it several hundred people are downloading this movie and the server is effectively being DDOS'ed.

These scenarios actually happened to me and are only a fraction of the reasons why this kind of reselling is a bad idea.

Also another huge problem, Jonny comes along, gets one of these accounts from FQ and then attracts hackers who pay him with a hacked PayPal account, they upload hacking tools, porn or simply get an account with Jonny to spam a million email addresses and then leave.

Once again this has happened lots of times with other hosts and is another reason why this reseller model never works, simply because you can't control who or what is on the servers.

As previously stated, if FQ introduced this kind of crap I would immediately remove every account I am involved in here.

It is a pity so many people are asking for this kind of reseller account when they obviously have no experience with it and have no clue what they are requesting.

I challenge anyone to show me a host that implements this reseller model without constant problems and poor reliability.

[John Kennett]

Your MT scenario could be a challenge, but the others that you cite bear no relevance to resold accounts as they could take place on any account.

You clearly have very strong views about this, and don't believe that anyone can run this sort of plan effectively. This may well be the case, but if (and as far as I know they have no plans to do this anyway so it's a highly hypothetical debate!) FutureQuest were to offer this kind of reselling I would be confident that they had thought it through.

My point is that FutureQuest are more than clueful enough to ensure that they do not damage their business model by implementing a poorly thought out reseller scheme. So actually, I'd say that it is you who is missing the point! :rasberry:

John

[phppete]

Sorry John but *you* are missing the point. The fact is this kind of reseller model means FQ or any other host have no control over who their resellers resell to.

I have been a reseller myself using this model hosted on servers that use this model. I have been through over 20 hosts, I had to close my hosting side of things down because nobody could offer reliability due to the reasons I stated.

When I moved here I had about 7 domains of my own, I closed 6 of them and paid $29.99 a month for one when previously I was paying $25 for multiple domains.

The kind of reseller model we are talking about here maybe fine for a mindless blog site or your grannys knitting pattern site but not for any site that pays your bills.

Don't forget some of us here depend on our hosting for our full time income and if anything causes us to lose orders because the servers are abused then some of us don't take that lightly.

If you own a brick and mortar shop and I block your customers from entering you might feel a little angry. If someone elses abuse causes our customers to not be able to shop on our site we would also feel a little angry (a baseball bat with 12" nails springs to mind).

My views are strong on this and I am just making sure FQ and its customers know the down side this type of reseller model.

This is the 'last chance saloon' for reliable shared hosting and I don't know why many of you are trying to sabotage that.

I'll make this the last post on this thread since I am tired of repeating myself but sometimes you have to bang on about the same thing to get it through to those that just don't get it and probably never will.

Peace :)

Pete

[TVB]

Don't forget some of us here depend on our hosting for our full time income and if anything causes us to lose orders because the servers are abused then some of us don't take that lightly.
If I was in that position, I'd get a dedicated server.

If you own a brick and mortar shop and I block your customers from entering you might feel a little angry. If someone elses abuse causes our customers to not be able to shop on our site we would also feel a little angry (a baseball bat with 12" nails springs to mind).
Yes, just like a dedicated storefront!

My views are strong on this and I am just making sure FQ and its customers know the down side this type of reseller model.
Thanks, I'm sure we all feel better now.

I'll make this the last post on this thread since I am tired of repeating myself but sometimes you have to bang on about the same thing to get it through to those that just don't get it and probably never will.
Nope, most of us (excluding you) doesn't get anything as you like to make clear quite often.

[phppete]

Oh here we go, flame attacks coming my way. It's nice to know, YET AGAIN, I am not allowed an opinion on these forums.

As for a dedicated server, of course that is the answer but when you are a new and struggling business it is not an option.

Oh and since FQ market themselves as hosts for 'MISSION CRITICAL' web sites I think the hosting plan we have is tailored perfectly for us, unless of course you are suggesting FQ doesn't market itself as mission critical hosting, in which case you are bringing into question the integrity of FQ which to me seems very unfair. FQ are doing an outstanding job and offer great services, please forgive me for wanting that to continue.

Thanks for your opinions, much appreciated.

Pete

[TVB]

Oh and since FQ market themselves as hosts for 'MISSION CRITICAL' web sites I think the hosting plan we have is tailored perfectly for us, unless of course you are suggesting FQ doesn't market itself as mission critical hosting, in which case you are bringing into question the integrity of FQ which to me seems very unfair. FQ are doing an outstanding job and offer great services, please forgive me for wanting that to continue.

I have complete confidence in Futurequest which is why I don't lecture others who have their sites here how to best keep my enterprise online, nor yours. If I didn't have that confidence level, I would host our site elsewhere.

I'll take the judgement of Terra, Deb, Joseph (need to keep it in the family there :yeah: ) along with everyone else who makes FQ the only place to host before you, Pete. I know you mean well, but it's old already. :eeww:

[MarkM]

Fact is,
- all of us here at FQ are `unpredictable' in how we will use or site.
- each one of us has different needs and resource usages and >>> patterns of uses >>> >>> >>>

FutureQuest watches these patterns VERY closely and respond quickly.
What more could we want in a world of constant change?

Unfortunately I would imagine it being very difficult to run a webhosting service as a `lifestyle' enterprise...
"Our buisness has grown enough for our needs.
We will no longer be accepting additional accounts unless a current account expires.
These will be available on a first-come/first served basis.
To be on the waiting list - send $18.95 to..."

Mark

..put all the resold accounts on their own community server called... `Dysektus'
:yeah:

[Wassercrats]

Since FQ with this type of plan would have no idea exactly how many individuals are using the server they have less control....I challenge anyone to show me a host that implements this reseller model without constant problems and poor reliability. I won't doubt your experience with other hosts and that model, but FutureQuest is supposedly something special (I say supposedly because I haven't had enough experience with other mission critical hosts), and you could meter the speed and stuff and know how hard hit the servers are without knowing everything about all your clients' clients. I agree with John Kennett about the rates needing to be high enough. You could buy anything. Even if there are no hosts who've pulled off the reseller model you're talking about, it doesn't mean FutureQuest can't. Not that I'd want them to at this point, because I don't need it.

[MarkM]

Nut'in like a bit of healthy discourse!
You can bet your sweet bippy that the FQ team thinks about these things through and through 24/7.

We live in an ever changing, increasingly complex world, in which our presence on the internet is also accumulative.

All these things create constantly changing scenerios

and, lest we forget...we are at the beginning of the `BIG BANG' part of internet growth and technological development.
...ever watched fireworks while on a roller coaster?

FutureQuest creates a platform for us to put on a show.
They do more then most to provide us with our needs.

Mark

I've considered asking FQ where life leads to, but on second thought I figured that might stretch the limits of their support. :wah:

[Monty]

reseller = http://www.futurequest.net/Services/Resellers/

affilate = http://www.questaffiliates.net/

I am a Futureqest reseller, not an affiliate

bang on about the same thing to get it through to those that just don't get it and probably never will. try reading the manual, Pete

[phppete]

Monty, as I have already explained, this discussion, or at least this part of it is about the typical hosting reseller model that people here are requesting.

I don't give a rats ass what you call it here, we are not discussing FQ 'reselling' which isn't the typical 'reseller model' anyway.

I'm sorry you are having problems understanding the different reseller models.

Edit:

Just noticed you are from Texas Monty, now understand why you are confused, it isn't your fault, you have my sympathy, the gene pool isn't too hot down there is it :rasberry:

[MarkM]

An FQ account is like renting a car, (electron transporter)..
We all get the same size motor, but can choose a model based on it's MB holding capacity- extra MB for a fee.
Each web transporter gets, as per model, XXX gallons(GB) of electron propulsion fuel, refilled each month upon payment of a fee.. extra propulsin for a fee

Okay, it's not exactly like renting a car, but I think an interesting analogy.
Mark
a strange world we live in...

[John Kennett]

I'll make this the last post on this thread since I am tired of repeating myself but sometimes you have to bang on about the same thing to get it through to those that just don't get it and probably never will.
Oh here we go, flame attacks coming my way. It's nice to know, YET AGAIN, I am not allowed an opinion on these forums.You're allowed your opinion, same as everyone else.

I hear what you're saying, I just happen to disagree with you. Doesn't mean I "don't get it". :smile:

John

[dank]

Oh here we go, flame attacks coming my way. It's nice to know, YET AGAIN, I am not allowed an opinion on these forums.
Pete, you really ought to chill a bit. The only one I see casting insults here is you, and you most certainly have expressed your opinion in this thread. Quite vehemently, in fact. That's a far cry from not being allowed an opinion. Go on the attack like that and you can and should expect a rebuttal every time. I know I expected my Spider-man 2 review to rub a person or two the wrong way. :\

Dan

[Deb]

I've been on a mini-vacation this week -- had family from out of state staying with us, so I am just now catching up.

A couple of points that may need to made again...

1) Please keep it friendly. Everyone's opinions are useful and it helps a LOT to hear the opinions of opposing sides. Nevertheless, we need to avoid any personal attacks, insults, or arguments. Strong views with the traditional "I feel" statements are best used in these types of discussions as opposed to "You are wrong" type statments (psych 101 folks ;))

2) FutureQuest has no plans at this time to open up a "One Size Fits All" type reseller package. We do agree that a dedicated box is best for those types of situations to avoid one "overselling reseller" from being able to degrade the services of another reseller.

3) I agree that those types of models can be awesome for those who use them appropriately, however, I also agree that more often than not, those types of models are prone to resource abuse. Poor service is almost inevitable with those types of plans... not impossible...but difficult to maintain and not something we are prepared to dive into at this time for several of the reasons Pete brings up.

4) FutureQuest is preparing to upgrade the packages enormously, however, You can bet your sweet bippy that the FQ team thinks about these things through and through 24/7. and If FutureQuest were ever to offer this sort of programme then I would have absolutely no doubt that they had done their sums and that they could do it well. e.g. "You can bet your sweet bippy that we wont do anything that we feel is going to cause any degradation of services. If we offer more it's because we have equipped and prepared ourselves in such a way that allows us to do so correctly :)

Deb
- I hearby give Monty permission to thawk Pete upside the head with one of those oversized cowboy hats .. and Pete needs to hold still and take it! :P

[Monty]

Will there be anything that will make the process of hosting multiple domains on one account easier and practicalI have seen the future and you are going to like it. More than that, I am not allowed to say right now.
I have 49 domains under one account.

Pete, I hope whatever is bugging ya brother, takes its leave. Being from Texas makes me the kind of guy that would give you his last buck or buy ya a beer with it.

[hobbes]

Monty - And here I thought you had a day job :) Whatcha doing hosting 49 accounts at FQ?

[PaulKroll]

I know I expected my Spider-man 2 review to rub a person or two the wrong way.
(Throws arm around Dan's shoulders) And I still like Dan, despite his complete lack of taste and obvious fashion issues. (Looks at Dan) (Removes arm) (Runs)

[TVB]

(Looks at Dan) (Removes arm) (Runs)

Run fast, very fast. I think he's a pro, as long as he stays away from the flood waters at practice time.

http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=117789#post117789

[Monty]

Monty - And here I thought you had a day job :) Whatcha doing hosting 49 accounts at FQ?hehe, it's a hobby gone all wrong or right, just depending upon your viewpoint. What's even funnier is the biggest one started in life as an IRM. I have 4 more migrating here shortly, but I had to install a 2nd hard drive today in my work machine to be able to download them all. That's actually the first time I have done a drive install and it was really lots of fun.

[Randall]

Run fast, very fast. I thought of Dan last weekend when the Honolulu Marathon was running past our hotel.

Not that I thought any better of him, but at least I was thinking of him. :rasberry:

Randall

[Deb]

That's actually the first time I have done a drive install and it was really lots of fun. My first drive install was what caused Terra and I to have our first telephone conversation. After hours of him trying to assist me via IRC we finally dropped the dime to talk me through the disaster. Needless to say, the drive got installed and I ummm let's say "made a new friend for life" :vday2: So I guess you could say my first was lots of fun too :yeah: even though it did take another couple of years for the importance of that phone call to be realized :dopey:

Deb
- Who knew drive installs could mean so much to hosting :dunno:

[dank]

And I still like Dan, despite his complete lack of taste and obvious fashion issues.
I didn't realize anyone here knows about my fashion issues... Let's see, I wear shorts in knee-deep snow and on the rare occasion I do wear pants, I generally opt for the cotton, slightly bell bottomed, orange Levi's -- official staff uniform from the '84 Olympics.

Run fast, very fast. I think he's a pro
Nah, not even close. Just a coach; broken down ex-athlete. I know a few pros, but I don't think that qualifies me as one.

as long as he stays away from the flood waters at practice time.
The good thing about coaching is, you can tell the athletes to go do stupid stuff like that while you stay dry under an umbrella.

Not that I thought any better of him, but at least I was thinking of him.
I'm not picky. :)

Dan

[Randall]

Let's see, I wear shorts in knee-deep snow and on the rare occasion I do wear pants, I generally opt for the cotton, slightly bell bottomed, orange Levi's -- official staff uniform from the '84 Olympics. The shorts would make sense in Hawaii -- the locals don't wear long pants if they can help it. (A shopkeeper told us they don't wear ties either, unless they're appearing in court or being buried.) Sounds like you're about 2,500 miles too far to the northeast for your own good.

But I think even they would take issue with orange Levi's. :blah: My first drive install was what caused Terra and I to have our first telephone conversation. Geez, all this time I've been overlooking the romantic possibilities of hard drive installations.

I'm available most evenings for consultations. :hehe:

Randall

[rossH]

reseller = http://www.futurequest.net/Services/Resellers/
I am a Futureqest reseller, not an affiliate...
I have 49 domains under one account.

Monty

I don't fully understand your architecture here, would you be so generous as to explain it a little to me?

I re-read the reseller page, something I had first studied 2-3 years ago. And I thought I got it, but your domains confuse me.

I had always thought that the accounts created under the FQ reseller system were stand-alone accounts, as resource-rich as any others, with their own IP and CNC.

And simply that they carried an economic filter - if you will - that condensed billing and support into you, the reseller, as the one reference point for FQ administration.

I had not thought that these subsidiary accounts needed to be created out of the resources allocated to one reseller account.

In other words, the 49 domains you have IR-something'd to your one account, are these accounts that take a portion of your package resources?

And if so, did you have to set it up that way, by the terms of the reseller system, or did you simply find that the margins allowed for it?

Does a resold account exist under its own IP? Are they separate, individual packages?

[dank]

Monty is "special." ;)

[PaulKroll]

Yeah, basically Ross you're correct about the way the reseller system works here at FutureQuest, but Monty is one of the folks with a a server arrangement that required "talking to Terra" which is a euphemism for, um... actually talking with Terra. Not so much a euphemism as a Kroll-writing-late-at-night-ism.

See Dedicated Server? (page 2) (http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18148&page=2&pp=10&highlight=monty+dedicated+server) for a hint... er... where "hint" is a subset of "said plainly and in good light".

Really, really need to sleep earlier when I'm on vacation...

[Monty]

Ross, all 49 (now 50 as of last night) are set up across a wide variety of servers here. Each one has it's own package, and yes, some are IRM's. I found out the hard way IRM's really are best for low usage/non dynamic sites and I have quite a few of those. I do have a dedicated server here, but it only has 3 sites on it and of those, only the main one sees any substantial traffic. The other 2 are IRM's and see very little, if any traffic. I am maxed out on points, so I get the full discount. I resell at FQ's listed prices. That's for a couple of reasons. Number one, I don't want to undercut pricing. Number two, if down the road, I don't want to handle a client or want to get out of reselling, I don't want my clients to see any changes, except with billing and support. Supporting resold clients is something I enjoy and many of them don't even know they have a CNC or even a clue about things like databases. Others are very advanced and know as much about those things as I do. But, if I decide that's not for me at some point, I want a very seamless transfer to occur.

My conversations with Terra and Arthur about my server were over RAM issues and which version of mysql were to be used. My site isn't "mission critical" like some sites are and I don't mind testing out new features or ideas even if it means a bit of downtime here and there. Both men are great to work with and I don't think I am "special", lol, except in the sense I don't mind helping with development. Bob and others have helped me many times and I certainly don't mind trying to help out when I can.

[hobbes]

Oh c'mon Monty, you ARE special :)

[Deb]

Oh c'mon Monty, you ARE special :) He absolutely is!!!!!

Anyone who knows Monty knows this to be fact!

He's probably one of the most generous, caring, helpful, people on the planet and what makes it even more special is that he is sincere with everything he does and he does A LOT for a LOT of people, animals, and the environment.

Deb
- He even drove over a thousand miles with almost a ton of rocks just to satisfy a fish tank and pond or two :P

[thor]

Just to clarify this...

Everyone has wants, wishes, requests, and even demands. What I can tell you is that FutureQuest will always do what we are reasonably able to do to please as many as we can at a time. The goal is always to ensure quality services while providing as much as we can to keep the costs as economical as possible without getting trapped into the "who can have the reddest line at the end of the year" wars.

Many of you have sites hosted elsewhere because we are not able to provide what those particular sites require. We certainly understand that and simply hope that someday our services will be enough to entice those sites to get on a FutureQuest of their own...



..and what you've described is EXACTLY WHY I keep my futurequest based sites at futurequest, despite the fact that I could save a few hundred dollars minimum by moving them elsewhere. My "thing" is that I'd just love to bring all of my domains here in a way that met my needs and didn't create large expense for small sites (they are all small sites elsewhere).

And since I'm considering moving those "small sites" from where they are, I wanted to check to see if anything was on the horizon for here. It's not, and that's fine.

Every once in a while I look at alternatives that would "save me money" by having me leave futurequest, and bring all my sites together under one single lower cost account at another hosting company. And each time I get tempted, I go lie down.

[thor]

Well, personally I hope FQ never develops any kind of reseller ease of use. I explored the reseller option years back, and finally decided I could serve my clients better as a developer by telling them where they were hosted, and making sure I was proud to tell them.



I've always been a bit puzzled by the reseller concept, since I can't imagine wanting to buy from a reseller who is two or three entities/rungs, down from the people who actually operate the servers.

My interest is/was to be able to host multiple domains of my own. I guess the technology might be the same, but the useage wouldn't be.

[thor]

Sorry John but *you* are missing the point. The fact is this kind of reseller model means FQ or any other host have no control over who their resellers resell to.



They would have as much control over downstream users as they choose to have. I think it's possible you are over generalizing from your own failed and badly ending enterprises. I think you make points that are in some senses accurate, but WAY over-generalized, and absolute.


The kind of reseller model we are talking about here maybe fine for a mindless blog site or your grannys knitting pattern site but not for any site that pays your bills.



It may be that you think you know better how others should run their businesses than they do, but I'm betting not. I run sites that pay signifiicant bills and some are hosted on a multi-domain plan such as you abhore (it's actually not really a reseller account, but functions as one). It's reliable ENOUGH that I've been there for several years. Just because you haven't "seen it" done reliably doesn't mean it isn't being done every day. Because it is.

I'm really not sure how you can draw conclusions for all of us out here, particularly those of us that are doing what you say is impossible, and profiting at it.

I think (and others have pointed this out) that you might be misinterpreting causes and effects, and misinterpreting your "data". I mean, after all, if the concern is server health, then just block anything that hogs cpu - scripts, mysql, etc. I think you are misunderstanding the root causes of what you fear most which is server unreliability.

I've been on hosts that had no reseller arrangements but couldn't keep their server running properly for more than a day or two, because a) they oversold, and b) they had no idea what they were doing. THOSE are the issues.

[Wassercrats]

I can't imagine wanting to buy from a reseller who is two or three entities/rungs, down from the people who actually operate the serversSome day I might become a reseller and have some scripts and services to offer people who host with me. A value added service like that could make it worth while to host with a reseller.

I chose a Dotster reseller for two of my domain names because they allowed check payment but Dotster didn't, and for some reason FutureQuest didn't allow check payment for domain names even though they allow it for hosting.

I'd rather deal with the actual server operators for support, but there could be some benefits to resellers.

[Monty]

Some day I might become a reseller and have some scripts and services to offer people who host with me. A value added service like that could make it worth while to host with a reseller. some of the VAS I have do or do for my clients includes keeping up with their DNS (it's $13.50 per year where I have my DNS), installing forums, and helping beginners with the whole concept of taking something on their computer and getting it on line. With others, I have helped troubleshoot balky scripts and I run backups locally from time to time in case they don't do that on their own. Setting up emails is another thing that baffles lots of folks and only takes a minute or two of time. Folks also like being able to call me for phone based support. It more the little things that seem to make the most difference and I know I can count on the Futurequest team for big things like hardware, ect. It's always fun to see that 'light' come on when someone finally gets a concept we all take for granted, such as uploading a file and seeing it live on the web.

[Deb]

It's always fun to see that 'light' come on when someone finally gets a concept we all take for granted, such as uploading a file and seeing it live on the web. I recently had another opportunity to see in real life how much many of us "just assume" a newbie should know ...

My grandmother purchased herself a laptop on an impulse buy during her trip down here.

Her experience with a keyboard stops at the bowling alley plugging in names and scores.

She struggled to find the space key! Just trying to understand how you could tell if something (image or text) was a link to be clicked on was a trial for her. As we progressed with our training time I set her free on Amazon.com and told her to search for a particular book she was wanting. I left to get a soda and upon my return I found her frustrated and deep within the browser's help being told nothing was found. She missed the search box on Amazon and ended up in the browser's help search area looking for her book!

Now she's able to surf a bit easier and can send/receive email via QuestMail (we didn't have time to even think about training her with a separate email client lol). She was SOOOO PROUD at all she had accomplished and I was quite enlightened to the reasons we still need to put the text "Click here to get there" on a web site. It has caused me to rethink a whole lot of things about web design and to even step back and look at some of our support requests a bit differently.

Anyone doing web design or support really should take the time to personally visit someone who has NEVER been anywhere near the net or a computer before. Spend a couple of hours with them in a relaxed environment. Both parties of the session will gain a GREAT DEAL from the experience.

Deb
- Yes, Solitaire was easily found and played aggressively by her. No matter how hard I tried to hide it :P

[kitchin]

...Just trying to understand how you could tell if something (image or text) was a link to be clicked on was a trial for her...
Pet peeve: seems as soon as CSS was available, designers decided they didn't want their links underlined. Or image links bordered in blue. I can understand the image borders, but the underlines were a good universal symbol for link. Back then. :wah:

[Deb]

Pet peeve: seems as soon as CSS was available, designers decided they didn't want their links underlined. Or image links bordered in blue. I can understand the image borders, but the underlines were a good universal symbol for link. Back then. :wah: I was one who preferred not underlining. After watching my dearest grandmother try to cope...that became one of the first things on my list to rethink. Those underlines would have helped her sooooooooo much had they existed....

Deb
- How quickly we forget...

[PaulKroll]

Not only underlining, but the color of unvisited and visted links is one of the few uses of color that has a definite impact on usability. Making visted and unvisted links the same color tends to send people into circles (they navigate through the same pages repeatedly because they can't tell they've already clicked on a link) and to miss pages (during their go-round they give up before clicking on the last link because they can't tell if they've hit it, and assume they have).

It's also confusing when the default colors for visited/unvisited links aren't used, but this is apparently secondary to the visited/unvisited being different. If you can suffer the odd choices of the folks from the early days of the web, you'll do better with the default colors.

[Wassercrats]

I always thought too many web pages weren't easy enough to understand, but it's like that with everything. My cousin told me a story about my uncle trying to learn how to use a VCR from the manual. My uncle complained that he pressed play and it didn't record, and my cousin said "think of what you're saying!" Later on I realized that he must have read "press play and record" and interpreted it the wrong way.

And I hate that in a lot of software, the "about" link tells you nothing but the version and name of the software.

[MarkM]

Wassercrats wrote
"And I hate that in a lot of software, the "about" link tells you nothing but the version and name of the software."

Ya ain't that a waste of a link!

I revisit it occasionally to look for a hidden button... :umm:

Mark

[John Kennett]

She struggled to find the space key! Just trying to understand how you could tell if something (image or text) was a link to be clicked on was a trial for her.Whilst there are certainly a whole lot of badly designed, inconsistent and generally confusing web sites out there, there does seem to be an expectation that people should just be able to use them without having to learn how. This is not easy even with the best designed sites if you don't understand the concepts.

It's just the same as learning to read, or drive a car, or any of the other things that most people take for granted once they can do it. It takes time and practise to get good at something!

A similar situation persists with general PC use, where people are often expected to just know how Windows works, and may be given training on Word and Excel, but have never found out about things like Alt+Tab . . .

Pet peeve: seems as soon as CSS was available, designers decided they didn't want their links underlined.My much bigger peeve is people who underline things that aren't links! :grr:

John

-- Time for another thread split? :wink:

[Wassercrats]

I saw a web site recently that had links double-underlined. That makes more sense in a CSS world, but I doubt it will catch on.

Recently I was annoyed by having to create an "enlarge text" button because styles besides font-size need to be changed when changing font-size on that page. I hoped that specifying the font size in the HTML would prevent people from increasing it and having text overflow the border, but in Firefox, changing the size through the view menu overrides my style and messes up the page.

I like Opera's zoom feature. It overrides my font-size without messing up anything. Everything gets increased in size.

And speaking of Opera, there's a new talking version (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5502431.html).

...All that doesn't blend into the conversation as well as I thought it would, but what the hell

[John Kennett]

I saw a web site recently that had links double-underlined. That makes more sense in a CSS world, but I doubt it will catch on.Yeah. Who would double underline anything? What a ridiculous idea! :whistle:

John

[Randall]

Not only underlining, but the color of unvisited and visted links is one of the few uses of color that has a definite impact on usability. Making visted and unvisted links the same color tends to send people into circles (they navigate through the same pages repeatedly because they can't tell they've already clicked on a link) and to miss pages (during their go-round they give up before clicking on the last link because they can't tell if they've hit it, and assume they have). I've flirted with non-underlined links, but people talked me out of it (except for menu links). My latest thing is changing the link's background color when you hover over it -- just a little extra bit of feedback.

I suppose I'll have to reassess my visited/unvisited policy. Just don't make me go back to blue links -- anything but that. :yukk: Who would double underline anything? What a ridiculous idea! Accountants do that. Perhaps Wasser is a bean counter in his other life?

Randall

[Wassercrats]

I've been fixing up PoliSource a little bit but I decided to keep the blue links. Almost everything is a link on the home page, so it looks ok, and I use the same color for visited links so things won't get messy looking. If the link text is descriptive enough, a different visited link color isn't necessary.

[ddunlap]

[QUOTE=Deb]My first drive install was what caused Terra and I to have our first telephone conversation. After hours of him trying to assist me via IRC we finally dropped the dime to talk me through the disaster. Needless to say, the drive got installed and I ummm let's say "made a new friend for life" :vday2:


I just got back in from a little time off and can't resist telling a similar story to Deb's back a few pages. I met my husband when I attempted to install, this is embarassing, a printer. Somehow I got everything all tangled up and took down my entire system. Many phone calls and two house calls later, I fed him a meal and the rest is "his-story". And, since I started reselling on FQ, I have also acquired a large aquarium, a bird and as of 2 days ago a baby puppy. And a 2000 gallon pond outside. The rest all live in my office. :crazy: I think there is something contagious going on here.

I'm not as "special" as Monty, but I do resell/host some domains on FQ and not one of my clients has ever had a problem with that. I don't keep it a secret or try to pretend I have a server over here. But I am there for them when they have questions, no matter how crazy, and when there is a problem (so very seldom it is not even an issue). I set up their e-mails for them, I solve problems, all as part of a service I offer, while my main service is web design. Generally, people really just want their web site to be up and their e-mail to be working, and FQ makes that a snap. I enjoy the fast response I ALWAYS get from the Team. I am forced to have a couple of e-commerce sites on another server, and I have waited as long as 3 days - 3 DAYS! - to get a response. If I wait 3 hours here I start wondering if there is a hurricane going on or something.