Need advice on finding a host?

I have been with http://www.dids.com (the hosting company which hosts this site) and I have been ever so pleased with them. They are always quick in with support which is an extra bonus. If you would like more information about my experience with them, feel free to email me.

I can understand your concerns over the reviews you have read on hosting companies.

Speaking as someone who manages a large webhosting directory, I can speak with some confidence on the subject.

We review a lot of hosting companies, the reviews follow a templated formula, so the hosts are only able to respond to a set series of questions. Its not intended as a promotional aid, and we recieve no income from any of the reviewed companies. This system is not flawless, but its the best system we have been able to devise in since we began publishing in 1997.

For what its worth I'd advise you to visit a few of the leading host directories, read the reviews, check out their awards, and then see how many of the award winners are actually current advertisers

One thing to watch out for is that many hosts are now displaying the awards they have won. Be careful, most of these awards were won long ago! In this industry things can go wrong quickly, just as anyone who was with CI Host last Xmas........

If you're looking to use Access somewhere down the line, you'd might as well go with a Windows NT host now rather than needing to migrate over from Unix later on. With that in mind, I'll side with Rob and suggest http://www.dids.com They have some nice inexpensive NT packages, good technical support and you won't "get taken".

Might want to consider doing a search at http://www.hostfind.com , http://www.hostsearch.com , or http://www.hostfinders.com .

I have never used the services of dids.com, but I have used the same server company they do - Burst.net. I cannot in good conscious, recommend Burst.net and by extension, any company using the services of Burst.net. This is not a reflection on the "customer support" or other services provided by dids.com (as it's probably very good) only on Burst.net.

I used the Burst.net services for awhile and was very unimpressed with the lack of support and their servers being down so much. Not only for my site but also for client sites. And maybe dids.com uses another company for NT support. I used Burst.net for Unix Hosting and that is what my experience is base on. Just one person's experience but just as valid.

Follow the suggestion of mjames86 Kimberly and do lots of research. It could save you alot of problems down the road.

It really bugs me when people provide uninformed information that could potentially hurt a company. It is not a hidden fact that we use VDI as a colocation facility, but we don't deal with BurstNET. We deal directly with VDI and have direct control of our servers.

I apologize for posting as it isn't my policy to post in a discussion talking about us - however, false information can really hurt a company so I wanted to make sure the record was cleared up on that.

Please feel free to e-mail if you have any questions on this subject because I definitly want to make sure the record is clear.

[Edited by Chad Simper on 09-23-2000 at 10:21 AM]

I take it you were referring to my previous post when you said: "uninformed information"? Maybe you could explain just where my information is incorrect, by explaining:

how http://216.10.4.112 translates into 216104112.burst.net

Registrant for 216104112.burst.net is,
BurstNET Technologies (BURST4-DOM)
P.O. Box 400
Bloomsburg, PA 17815-0400

and the Network information is:
BurstNET Technologies, Inc. (NETBLK-VDI-BURSTNET-0)
PO Box 400
Bloomsburg, PA 17815-0400
US

Netname: VDI-BURSTNET-0
Netblock: 216.10.0.0 - 216.10.4.255

dids.com has an IP adress of 216.10.18.30 which falls within;
Netblock: 216.10.18.0 - 216.10.20.255 - which is also held by
BurstNET Technologies, Inc. (NETBLK-VDI-BURSTNET-0)

So you could be absolutely correct, when you say you deal directly with VDI and have access to your own Servers. Please explain though, just where my information is incorrect, when it comes to Burst.net servers being involved!

I look forward to your reply.

Hi everyone, it's nice to be back after I went missing for almost 2 months where I had to attend to my business(not related to Internet).

I would definitely recommend DIDS.COM OR INTERSURGE.COM as both are reliable Web Hosts that you don't have to worry about being cheated and most important they are also members of this Forum and you can rest assured that they will go all out to help members in whatever way possible.

Just my opinion ..... and I remember Chad once said the most important thing missing when we are on the net is BODY LANGUAGE. I guess he's absolutely right.

WebsiteRob,

I assumed that was were you were assuming we were dealing with BurstNET. As most know, BurstNET is in the VDI facility - BurstNET is by far the largest host in the VDI facility.

BurstNET offered to provide us with IP addresses (we do not yet use enough for ICANN to sell directly to us) since they can register them directly with ICANN bypassing the fees that VDI charges and BurstNET offered to sell them to us for a significantly smaller fee. It's just like if we were to be running dedicated servers out of say SkyNetWeb - our IP addresses would say their name instead of ours so are we guilty of doing something wrong? IP addresses say little unless you can verify what exactly the relationship is between the host and the company that owns that IP address.

I do appreciate your bringing that up though and I hope my previous post wasn't as offensive as it sounds now that I read it. It's not so much misinformation is just that consumers like yourself immediatly assume that we resell for or lease our servers from BurstNET because of info like you have. I think all consumers really need to do is fire off an e-mail to the host asking about it instead of spreading information that could be completely irrelevant. It would save a lot of problems in the long run.

We are honest and up-front (ask any of our customers) and we would explain anything that concerned you, including your assumptions. In the future, you might consider verifying your information before you actually start posting it on an open forum that could potentially hurt the host. Asking us this question directly would have very easily kept this conversation off an open forum and would have cleared up your questions.

It's unfortunate that so many people like yourself simply assume what you have by a simple IP address lookup because by doing so, they could be passing up a completely perfect host that could have dealt with their hosting needs forever just the way they wanted but because of a simple uninformed decision, they may deal with a host that they will have to leave in a month's time.

I apologize everyone for this topic going off course. WebsiteRob, please e-mail me directly if you would like to continue this dicussion.

P.S. I should have worded my previous post a little differently because yes, we do *deal* with BurstNET in a way by buying IP addresses from them, but if that's a crime, sue me

I appreciate your candidness Chad, and as you have already mentioned, my information (as posted) is correct. Your first post may have been a knee-jerk reaction (and we've all had those ) but it was within the tone of this discussion so no problem there.

We all use programs to find information and once the program has proven itself, do not doubt the veracity of the information. There are many reasons why a person would not contact someone directly and in this case, there was no reason for me to do so.

You should be fully prepared for people to find out this information, on their own and with never contacting anyone in person. Registered information is believed and presumed to be correct. If the registered information is incorrect, that is not the fault of the person or the program, doing the search and finding it.

I see no problem with posting Public information on a Public board and was curious about your comment regarding it. To each their own, and this discussion shall become moot, anyway, once the registered information is corrected to reflect the way things actually are.

WebsiteRob,

If you read my previous posts, you will see that I never questioned the correctness of your information. I am not really sure why you got off topic even further with the correctness of your information because I never questioned it nor did I say it was incorrect. I simply questioned your assumptions and asked what made you conclude those conclusions, though I never questioned that information.

I think that when you post a comment about one of your competitors you should use a level of professionalism. If you are going to bring up public information and make assumptions about it, you might consider actually verifying the point behind that information before attempting to discredit a competitor.

I apologize to everyone else because this isn't my normal attitude but when a competitor makes a post trying to harm our public image, it hits home.

Chad, this post is my last on this subject because we are beating a dead horse, so please allow me a quick recap.

I stated I could not, in good conscious, recommend Burst.net and by extension any company using their Servers. Publicly registered information showed the IP address being used by dids.com and 216.10.4.112 were on Burst.net Servers.

I also stated "This is not a reflection on the "customer support" or other services provided by dids.com (as it's probably very good) only on Burst.net."

You have stated that the (Publicly available) information I used, is correct--but fault me for believing it and also for mentioning that information. You have inferred that I "should not" believe Registered information nor assume it is correct, but should instead contact the company for verification.

If the Registered information is incorrect - CHANGE IT! Don't expect people to call you up and ask you if it's correct!

Although you have stated what is "actually" going on, you ask too much when you say that people should contact a company, to verify Registered information they have made Publicly available, to find out if it is actually correct or not. Or to find out if that's the way things really are.

And now I apologize to everyone else, as somebody has tried to make me look bad for using information, that is available to us all. A sad case of "Shooting the messenger" I'm afraid.

And let me recap:

What I am asking is for someone who is going to make a public post "Shooting something" they should at least know what they are shooting and know what's behind what they are shooting, not to mention knowing more about what they are shooting about.

"registered information showed the IP address being used by dids.com and 216.10.4.112 were on Burst.net Servers" <-- No, it simply says that we are using IP addresses that are purchased by Burst.net.

I don't fault you for believing the information you found... Please understand that I am faulting you for making assumptions on that information and for posting them publically as a competitor. Again, as I have stated twice now, I am not inferring that you shouldn't believe that information - I am saying that you shouldn't make a public post about it when you are uneducated on it.

In the future, you might consider exercising a level of professionalism by not posting irrelevant information about a competitor. If a normal consumer had posted this, it wouldn't have been a big deal to me... I would have just posted an explanation but as a competitor, your actions really bugged me.

I didn't attempt to make you look bad - what I attempted to do was clear up the misconceptions that a competitor caused. I wasn't "Shooting the messenger" because in my book, someone who competes with us isn't a messenger.

[Edited by Chad Simper on 09-24-2000 at 09:12 PM]

Hi Chad

Just back online after a residential move and getting caught up on things. Noticed you amended your previous post (can't remember what exactly) and felt it deserved one more comment.

The average person would find the same information as I did, and mostly likely make the same assumption. If you choose to fault me for not checking the accuracy of the information, so be it. I admit my guilt, and I will make the same assumption every time. My apologies to you, as I just don't have the time to confirm the accuracy of Registered information for all the Hosters out there.

Rule of Thumb that I follow, whoever owns the IP Address, probably does the Hosting on their server. In some cases it may prove incorrect (as it did this time) but it doesn't happen very often.

BTW - My original post ended with "Follow the suggestion of mjames86 Kimberly and do lots of research. It could save you alot of problems down the road." and the post made no reference to doing any business with myself. I take it as a compliment that you would consider Potent Products as a competitor, thank you.

You bet! I have no idea what your services are like but I am sure you do a good job or you wouldn't doing it (or you won't be doing it for much longer).

Anyone that offers hosting services is a competitor... That's the business world. And there is plenty of room.

I understand that average poster would find the same info as you - in fact, 99% of posters would find the same info that you did... But, in all reality, users need to be educated that that information isn't always correct... Most that host with a dedicated server company have to deal with their IP addresses being registered to another company... Even a lot of hosts that colocate have to deal with their IP addresses being registered to the colocation company. So, making those assumptions is completely valid (I never said it wasn't) but people need to realize that they really shouldn't make a decision based on information that really isn't verified - only provided.

Also, just because you weren't soliciting business (which I didn't accuse you of and which I don't feel you were trying to do) doesn't mean you aren't a competitor which places you in a slightly different position when posting comments pertaining to another company in the same line of business.

Though I believe you should have at least confronted us before making your post, that isn't the biggest issue here... The biggest issue is that you are a competitor (whether you think so or not) by offering the same services and your post could be read as (by my firm in particular) a competitor trying to hurt another - which is a common business practice (one that I don't agree with).

Hope the move went well - their rough!

P.S. - I edited for a spelling error

Hi Kimberly

http://www.coastlandtech.com

Provides excellent hosting for $35US per year for 50 megs, cgi-bin, secure server, unlimited POP3 email etc. I have two sites, soon to be three, there and have been very pleased. This host is intended for small businesses and hobbyists.

Geoff

[Edited by Seapaddler on Nov. 26, 2000 at 06:20 PM]