Shared Hosting Offers

jemaltz

jarland said: LE* landed in a critical time for the industry where hosting was expensive and low end VPS was the way to do it yourself for less. Those times have passed. The market will not return to what it was.

Those times have passed because cheap dedicated servers are now the way to do VPS yourself, for less. Expanding into shared hosting - one step down from VPSes - seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

The hierarchy that I see is:

• Shared hosting: Hosts websites

• VPSes: Can do shared hosting, and more

• Dedicated servers: Can do VPSes, and more

While shared hosting may bring in "an" audience, it does not seem to be the natural progression of "this" audience.

Personally, I think it would be worth exploring things you can do with low end boxes (VPSes or dedicated servers) /beyond/ web hosting, which has always been a core focus of le*. Doubling down on the focus on web hosting may be an easier short term move, but I think going in the opposite direction has a higher potential pay out.

jar

jemaltz said: The hierarchy that I see is

Yeah, that makes sense. I think we're pretty wide open for the dedicated server market at the moment. I'm not sure how we can really expand on that or in that direction. Open to ideas.

Traffic

@jarland said:
Yeah, that makes sense. I think we're pretty wide open for the dedicated server market at the moment. I'm not sure how we can really expand on that or in that direction. Open to ideas.

Colo?

jemaltz

jarland said: Open to ideas.

I'm not going to say it's easy, but like I said: One core focus of LE* has always been web hosting (e.g. WordPress on a 64 MB VPS), and since servers can do a whole lot more than web hosting, I see additional opportunities....

..what those opportunities are....beats me!

ricardo

Schematize the offerings, there's a few sites out there that allow you to search by resource limits. They're a great way to weed out the 90% that don't fit your need at any one time. The same can apply to shared hosting but obviously different limits, like inode limit, max filesize and those kind of limits.

It'd be a fair bit of work but definitely a valuable resource worth visiting.

Traffic

@ricardo said:
Schematize the offerings, there's a few sites out there that allow you to search by resource limits. They're a great way to weed out the 90% that don't fit your need at any one time. The same can apply to shared hosting but obviously different limits, like inode limit, max filesize and those kind of limits.

It'd be a fair bit of work but definitely a valuable resource worth visiting.

Or just require a specific formatting for the titles. That way the Offers section is much easier to browse.

hawc

ricardo said: Schematize the offerings, there's a few sites out there that allow you to search by resource limits. They're a great way to weed out the 90% that don't fit your need at any one time. The same can apply to shared hosting but obviously different limits, like inode limit, max filesize and those kind of limits.

This. Keep the LEB style, but make it more sortable and searchable.

raindog308

Traffic said: Or just require a specific formatting for the titles.

I want to see:

• little smiley faces making bugged-out-eyes expressions or rotating heads because the offer is just so damn exciting
• maybe some flames and hearts, too
• ASCII block colors, bold colors, and different fonts
• lots of asterisks and exclamation points and stars. I want my offers to look like a drunken kindergartner bedazzled them.
• words that help us find the best offers like "WOW!" and "AMAZING"

Here is a primer: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

ricardo

I'll start Very similar to a DB I run to maintain which servers I have or will use.

Clearly you'd want to have a good think about what kind of info you'd like in there and how easy it is to get, though. You could take it further and mention upstream providers, peering etc that a lot of people are interested in, here at least.

<provider>
    <id>1</td>
    <name>securedragon.net</name>
    <notes>jolly good</notes>
</provider> 

<package>
    <id>1</id>
    <providerid>1</providerid>
    <type>VPS</type>
    <currency>USD</currency>
    <amount>9.99</amount>
    <duration>
        <type>year</type>
        <value>1</type>
    </duration>
    <virtualization>OVZ</virtualization>
</package>

<location>
    <geonameid>1234567</geonameid>
    <iso>US</iso>
    <city>Los Angeles</city>
</location>

<product>
    <id>1</id>
    <packageid>1</package>
    <geonameid>1234567</geonameid>
    <resource>
        <disk>
            <type>GB</type>
            <value>30</type>
        </disk>
        <cpu>
            <type>shared</type>
            <value>1</type>
        </cpu>
        <network>
            <type>Mbps</type>
            <value>100</type>
        </network>
        ...etc
    </resource>
</product>

raindog308

ricardo said: Clearly you'd want to have a good think about what kind of info you'd like in there and how easy it is to get, though. You could take it further and mention upstream providers, peering etc that a lot of people are interested in, here at least.

Never going to happen. Too many variables, and people want to present their offers their way. If everything is reduced to a database entry, then you'll everyone doing a SELECT TOP 1 FROM offers SORT BY price desc.

ricardo

Too many for whom? If you have a site commanding 10K uniques a day (such a resource could easily have that many visitors), providers will want to be seen there, and take the hour to provide the details. It'd be a big project for sure, and would rely on feedback. I'm just putting the seed of the idea out there.

mpkossen

jarland said: What a lot of people don't realize is just how important Vanilla's design is to making this place seem active. If we used more traditional forum software, everyone would think this place was on it's death bed. In a given day there are anywhere from 10-25 active users... for the whole day.

I'm sorry, but I think that's just bullshit. If there's a single thing Vanilla is good at [for LET] it's feeding drama threads. The top threads are those that get the most attention, simple as that. Drama threads get loads of views and responses, thus stay up there longer. And like you said, it seems to make this place more active that in actually is.

It (Vanilla) is how you managed to get away with unbanning Clarke. You told me it didn't get any attention because the thread wasn't up there. But given that it was an offer it was sunk automatically, it never got a chance. Vanilla is ruining this site and it's been that way for years.

Don't feed us this bullshit, please. The only thing that gets any actual traffic here is drama. That's been the case for years and I'll applaud the second that changes.

raindog308

ricardo said: 'm just putting the seed of the idea out there.

I hate to tell you this, but that seed was planted, grown, watered, and wilted for lack of interest. What you're proposing has been done several times before. For example:

http://lowendstock.com

ricardo

You hate to tell me this... right. I've seen it before. It's too small scale, and very easily replicated.

Do you know why it's not a good comparison? It'd take less than a week to replicate it. If that's the scale of the ideas here, good luck.

jar

@mpkossen

I don't know where that bad attitude came from but I wish you'd point it toward someone else. I'd like to call you out for being an unnecessary asshole here today and calling me out on my "bullshit" while agreeing with me.

@jarland said: What a lot of people don't realize is just how important Vanilla's design is to making this place seem active

You replied:

mpkossen said: I'm sorry, but I think that's just bullshit. If there's a single thing Vanilla is good at [for LET] it's feeding drama threads.

Then you added:

mpkossen said: And like you said, it seems to make this place more active that in actually is.

Well no shit dude. So you agree with me that Vanilla is necessary to make the place SEEM like it is more active than it really is!? Thanks for calling me out on my "bullshit" (that you agree with) man!

You're starting to get on my nerves with posts like that. I suppose that's my problem though.

raindog308

ricardo said: You hate to tell me this... right.

You're right - I was being sarcastic, because I don't think the idea is either original or interesting.

ricardo said: It's too small scale, and very easily replicated.

Small scale...because having 1,000 more summerhosts would add value...?

Small scale...but it's the exact same info as you're proposing.

ricardo said: Do you know why it's not a good comparison? It'd take less than a week to replicate it. If that's the scale of the ideas here, good luck.

But that's exactly what you're proposing: a database of offers.

You're thinking that hosts would be eager to participate. They're not...because they want to present their offers in their language to entice customers. Dumping it into parameters just invites people to sort by price and anything special about the host is lost. My understanding is that lowendstock hand-gathered/hand-scraped the data.

You're also assuming readers would be interested...considering how rarely lowendstock.com is mentioned here, I'm thinking they're not.

Fundamentally you're assuming that offers can be parsed down to lists of packages and locations. They can't. One guy's got DDOS protection with anycast in this location but not that one, while this guy has e3 processors here but e5s over there, and another one is offering cloud dynamic scaling, and another guy offers per-hour pricing while another doesn't, this guy offers backups and this one doesn't, etc. Yes, it could all be reduced to a database but you'd have either a thousand columns or a thousand interrelated tables.

Who exactly is going to build something that complicated? And for what purpose? All so someone can sort on price and decide "hey, 123systems is better than Ramnode..."

But why not prove me wrong? Build your dream and see if they come.

mpkossen

jarland said: Well no shit dude. So you agree with me that Vanilla is necessary to make the place SEEM like it is more active than it really is!? Thanks for calling me out on my "bullshit" (that you agree with) man!

You're not getting my point.

jarland said: You're starting to get on my nerves with posts like that. I suppose that's my problem though.

It is.

mpkossen

Oh, and @jarland, I think it's a big sign of weakness you've removed me from Skype and won't talk to me anymore.

I hoped you would have been a better person but I guess you've proved me (and several with me) wrong.

jar

mpkossen said: You're not getting my point.

No I got your point. Let me summarize it:

"As the former admin here I'd just like to say you're full of shit and then I'd like to re-word everything you already said and validate the points that I'm calling bullshit."

@mpkossen said:
Oh, and jarland, I think it's a big sign of weakness you've removed me from Skype and won't talk to me anymore.

I hoped you would have been a better person but I guess you've proved me (and several with me) wrong.

Yeah, I did, because it seems like a liability if you're going to be on my case in public anyway. Of all people I thought you would be the most understanding of the struggles of running LET and that you wouldn’t be a jerk to me in public about it. I guess I was wrong about the kind of person that you are. I don't need the former admin popping his head in to challenge me on the numbers when you know darn well where those numbers come from.

There is absolutely 0% "bullshit" in this statement and you know it because the numbers haven't changed:

@jarland said: What a lot of people don't realize is just how important Vanilla's design is to making this place seem active. If we used more traditional forum software, everyone would think this place was on it's death bed. In a given day there are anywhere from 10-25 active users... for the whole day.

ricardo

raindog308 said: You're right - I was being sarcastic, because I don't think the idea is either original or interesting.

Indeed, that's fine to have your opinion, but TBF I think the tone of your posts are always pretty rude, closed-minded... cheap digs mostly. Me thinks there's a lot of attention seeking in the way you write

raindog308 said: Small scale...because having 1,000 more summerhosts would add value...?
Small scale...but it's the exact same info as you're proposing.

You sound like a puppet. The entire hosting space is about Summerhosts, now? Funny, as I thought the entire web was hosted on web servers, usually provided by web hosting providers. I wouldn't describe that as "Summer hosts". Pretty surreal. It seems you like to shut conversations/ideas down in this way... trivializing things as such

raindog308 said: But that's exactly what you're proposing: a database of offers.

I proposed a general idea, a tool for people to use. I wrote a few sentences on it. There's some creative license in expanding the idea. I know I'd use such a tool, and I know others would. I spend over $10K a year on hosting and could easily find others who do the same, and have similar requirements of quickly finding hosts matching X Y and Z (with the help of some feedback). "Hosting comparison sites" have always been hugely lucrative too. Call that a "database of offers" if you want. How about we call LET "a collection of threads" since we're being so insightful.

You're thinking that hosts would be eager to participate. They're not...because they want to present their offers in their language to entice customers. Dumping it into parameters just invites people to sort by price and anything special about the host is lost. My understanding is that lowendstock hand-gathered/hand-scraped the data.

To a degree I think you have a point there, but there's a bigger point of businesses following where the customers and money is. Anyways, to what degree do you think you are in a position to speak for the entire industry?

Fundamentally you're assuming that offers can be parsed down to lists of packages and locations. They can't. One guy's got DDOS protection with anycast in this location but not that one, while this guy has e3 processors here but e5s over there, and another one is offering cloud dynamic scaling, and another guy offers per-hour pricing while another doesn't, this guy offers backups and this one doesn't, etc. Yes, it could all be reduced to a database but you'd have either a thousand columns or a thousand interrelated tables.

I didn't say it would be easy, but I don't see why you think this is such a big deal. Maybe you always gave up at things that were beyond 'easy'? I see 'custom configurators' pretty often on hardware sites. It just takes some careful consideration and effort.

Who exactly is going to build something that complicated? And for what purpose? All so someone can sort on price and decide "hey, 123systems is better than Ramnode..."

Durr. Someone who wants to be authoritative in the hosting space and maybe even make cash out of it. The usual reasons. Your example... tedious.

But why not prove me wrong? Build your dream and see if they come.

I've been considering having such a thing since I have a lot of data to start with. Now that a resident attention seeker has shat all over my 2 cents, and bearing in mind I've pretty much got an entire list of who posts offers here, I'm done

Lee

@jarland, stop procrastinating and get on with it.

raindog308

ricardo said: your posts are always pretty rude, closed-minded

ricardo said: Me thinks there's a lot of attention seeking in the way you write

ricardo said: You sound like a puppet.

ricardo said: Now that a resident attention seeker

Yeah, that's me.

You've moved from discussing your idea to attacking me. Not very classy.

ricardo said: Anyways, to what degree do you think you are in a position to speak for the entire industry?

...as much as you?

ricardo said: I don't see why you think this is such a big deal

Who said it was? Indeed, I think it would be a rather small deal, which is what apparently has upset you to the point that you're slinging ad hominems.

Someone on the Internet did not like your idea. OMG.

ricardo said: bearing in mind I've pretty much got an entire list of who posts offers here, I'm done

So apparently you don't think your idea is worth pursuing either.

Lee

That's pretty much me though. Oh shit, got to leave for work in 6 hours and need sleep... Hmm, fuck it, that gives me 6 hours to prove this idiot wrong, I can sleep tomorrow night.

ricardo

classy

chortle. Stable, horse, bolted. Clearly speaking a certain way to you makes you more attentive.

Anyways, to what degree do you think you are in a position to speak for the entire industry?
...as much as you?

I didn't make a blanket statement about hosting providers not being interested.

Who said it was? Indeed, I think it would be a rather small deal, which is what apparently has upset you to the point that you're slinging ad hominems.
Someone on the Internet did not like your idea. OMG.

I just find you trivial and you 'get in the way'. It's not ad hominem at all. You do have this 4chan mentality in pretty much everything you convey. I don't mind that you don't like my idea, I don't like your churlish wanky attitude, is all, and I'm merely responding to it.

So apparently you don't think your idea is worth pursuing either.

I've already said I have a similar internal list so clearly I already found it worth pursuing. It'd also be a side-project for me, not something I could invest a lot of time in, but ... LET being a place that's supposed to be about providing and sharing information about web hosts, it's hardly a great comparison, unless you're into that lowest common denominator nonsense to shut down conversations.... Anyways, getting side-tracked by your mega-sized personality. I offered a community suggestion, and I've responded to your words. Let's move on.

raindog308

ricardo said: Clearly speaking a certain way to you makes you more attentive.

ricardo said: I just find you trivial

ricardo said: You do have this 4chan mentality

ricardo said: I don't like your churlish wanky attitude

ricardo said: your mega-sized personality

ricardo said: It's not ad hominem at all.

Thanks for the clarification.

linuxthefish

mpkossen said: vanilla

jarland said: other stuff

Wtf how can you guys not get along??

It's scary to think how it's such a fine balance between LET continuing to be the great and highly addictive forum that it is and turning into somewhere like WHT and all the other hosting forums, and personally I think Vanilla goes a long way to keeping it on the unique side however much it might suck.

ricardo

Amusing how you centre on that.

Really looking forward to the _shared hosting category _ ... wish the ideas were a bit bigger and more serious.

http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/internet-hosting-services.html

jar

@ricardo said:
Really looking forward to the _shared hosting category _ ... wish the ideas were a bit bigger and more serious.

Honestly, first focus is on what I can do to improve things. Not necessarily what we can employ developers to improve on and hope that it has an impact. I'd rather prove my ideas with hard numbers and then, maybe then, I can feel personally justified in going to Jon and Alex and talking about ways that we can spend money to improve the sites.

Basically if I can't improve it at no cost, I shouldn't be making proposals for things that do cost. That's my honest opinion.

linuxthefish said: Wtf how can you guys not get along??

I don't know. I try. I figured if anyone would understand...

Mun

@jarland who are the active 25 members, I think they deserve free titles. For example 'The Elite 25'

Lee

Mun said: @jarland who are the active 25 members, I think they deserve free titles. For example 'The Elite 25'

Me, one of the 4 screens has LET open all the time, not even sure the monitor is on, think the LET homepage is burnt on.