Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Is this legit? lmao - Page 5
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Is this legit? lmao

1235

Comments

  • For big provider, maybe this is not an issue. But this is a lowend. A lot of the provider here is a 1 man show. Why do you think it's a 1 man show ? because they can't afford to hire other, let alone pay for advertising fee.

    A lot of provider already suffered from paper thin margin ( e.g. @seriesn, @MikePT @Cam , lot of others). And your idea is to squeeze them for some more ?

    Even WHT doesn't have the audacity to do so. At least they allow free provider.

    Thanked by 3bulbasaur taizi foitin
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @yokowasis said: Even WHT doesn't have the audacity to do so. At least they allow free provider.

    There's a reason I stopped posting ads there many years ago. They don't generate revenue. Like, at all. LET does. I understand the perspective and I'm not sure I have an opinion on it, but my experience seems like it might be of enough value to mention.

  • @jar said:

    @yokowasis said: Even WHT doesn't have the audacity to do so. At least they allow free provider.

    There's a reason I stopped posting ads there many years ago. They don't generate revenue. Like, at all. LET does. I understand the perspective and I'm not sure I have an opinion on it, but my experience seems like it might be of enough value to mention.

    Now that LET going to WHIT route, what do you think would happened ? Now that provider have to shell $200 annually. This is just cpanel fiasco all over again.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @yokowasis said: Now that LET going to WHIT route, what do you think would happened ? Now that provider have to shell $200 annually. This is just cpanel fiasco all over again.

    People will complain. Successful providers will pay it. Providers struggling to generate the value here will disappear. Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    Hard to say if that would play out to a net positive or negative.

  • @jar said:
    Providers struggling to generate the value here will disappear.

    And move to LES, and saying

    There's a reason I stopped posting ads there many years ago. They don't generate revenue. Like, at all. LES does.

    Thanked by 2cybertech bulbasaur
  • jhjh Member
    edited March 2022

    $200/year isn’t a lot of money for a business and I agree that this will weed out some of the summerhosts.

    I hope nobody thinks it will stay at $200. $200 will become $300, then $600, then this place will become WHT. It’s already pretty dry.

    But what bothers me is the message that this is somehow necessary for the forum. It costs peanuts to maintain a forum and the ad spots should cover it several times over. To me this sounds like @jbiloh has lost interest in the forum and needs cash to justify taking any time away from his main business. Fair enough, but don’t wrap it in that covering costs talk.

  • NyrNyr Community Contributor, Veteran

    As usual, this was implemented in a shady and forceful way.

    Biloh cares so little about the community that he was unable to stand up and make an official announcement. Only after someone else broke the news he managed to confirm the information.

  • @noobjockeys said:
    I can't see how many would want to pay considering they have to compete with Racknerd spamming threads with double my bandwidth etc...

    That's easy: every provider keeps spaming threads :expressionless:

  • HarambeHarambe Member, Host Rep

    YUGE missed opportunity, should've just rolled out some LET NFTs

    Thanked by 4MannDude FrankZ jar taizi
  • ktkt Member, Host Rep
    edited March 2022

    Last couple rare times I visited LEB & LET it was filled with the exact same 1-2 providers over and over, you might as well set a big banner and redirect to your quite obviously affiliated host(s).

    Absurd decision with all the BSA ads its more than enough to upkeep a blog and forum that doesn't appear to have been majorly upgraded or invested in and just seems like an excuse to further line your pockets. The excuse that it costs $22k/yr to up keep the 2 sites is also laughable.

    I've also stopped renewal on our LEB ads which we've had for whatever many years.

    Already replied to the gmail email but posting here as well to remove our provider tag and quite funny actually you guys went through the whole emailing invoices to everyone without notice.

  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran

    I requested a password reset on https://billing.lowendtalk.com/ so I could actually login to the billing account you made for me. I was curious to see what details you used for things like name/address/phone/etc.

    Plus, I figured access to a helpdesk may be useful.

    Still no password reset sent to me. =/

  • @jar said: Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    What if the Summerhost's intention is to pay 100$ upfront, amass a busload of accounts (easily recouping the 100$) and close in 6 months? I don't think putting up the 100$ is going to dissuade summerhosts, it might actually work better in their favor. Users would assume that the "provider" tag legitimizes the business and give a false sense of security.

  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited March 2022

    @abytecurious said:

    @jar said: Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    What if the Summerhost's intention is to pay 100$ upfront, amass a busload of accounts (easily recouping the 100$) and close in 6 months? I don't think putting up the 100$ is going to dissuade summerhosts, it might actually work better in their favor. Users would assume that the "provider" tag legitimizes the business and give a false sense of security.

    sure, it will dilute the perceived value of that tag

  • @stefeman said:
    The ultimate finale is when @jbiloh unleashes the collection agencies after unpaid invoices if people had not requested to be demoted into host reps.

    I love how this was never responded to or adressed as in the replies which would imply that its in the works xD

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    Even if he does, it wont work in court.

  • @stefeman said:

    @stefeman said:
    The ultimate finale is when @jbiloh unleashes the collection agencies after unpaid invoices if people had not requested to be demoted into host reps.

    I love how this was never responded to or adressed as in the replies which would imply that its in the works xD

    its a prepaid service, so no netcup signature moves here.

    but i would expect annual, biennial and triennial plans coming 🤣

  • stefemanstefeman Member
    edited March 2022

    @cybertech said:

    @abytecurious said:

    @jar said: Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    What if the Summerhost's intention is to pay 100$ upfront, amass a busload of accounts (easily recouping the 100$) and close in 6 months? I don't think putting up the 100$ is going to dissuade summerhosts, it might actually work better in their favor. Users would assume that the "provider" tag legitimizes the business and give a false sense of security.

    sure, it will dilute the perceived value of that tag

    I have an amazing solution to this.

    We could increase the price even more, so that scam operations would not be worth it.

    /s

  • @stefeman said:

    @cybertech said:

    @abytecurious said:

    @jar said: Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    What if the Summerhost's intention is to pay 100$ upfront, amass a busload of accounts (easily recouping the 100$) and close in 6 months? I don't think putting up the 100$ is going to dissuade summerhosts, it might actually work better in their favor. Users would assume that the "provider" tag legitimizes the business and give a false sense of security.

    sure, it will dilute the perceived value of that tag

    I have an amazing solution to this.

    We could increase the price even more, so that scam operations would not be worth it.

    /s

    why would they raise barrier to entry?

    //s

  • LeviLevi Member

    And it begins. Paying to be an "elite" member. This will almost eliminate drama and will bring false sense of security. The downfall will accelerate.

    Personally I will visit LET less. Now it is "a market" and soon we will see "did you check the offers section?"...

    Thanked by 1bulbasaur
  • Cya boomer. This is an awesome way to weed out the shitscammers.

  • ErisaErisa Member

    @cybertech said: but i would expect annual, biennial and triennial plans coming 🤣

    If you check the order page you can see those plans are indeed there, and they even come with small discounts.

    Thanked by 1Ganonk
  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    @jar said: Sales + renewals for Black Friday have almost exclusively been from here most years for MXroute. New sales from LET have been no less than $10k that month alone, every year. Renewals add up to that month being roughly $30k in gross revenue (net is much lower, but that's my problem and doesn't speak much to offset what impact LET has had).

    I have to assume that I'm not the only one seeing numbers like this, I don't consider mine to be anywhere near the most popular service offering here.

    Nice numbers. Congrats. Well earned no doubt.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • @Erisa said:

    @cybertech said: but i would expect annual, biennial and triennial plans coming 🤣

    If you check the order page you can see those plans are indeed there, and they even come with small discounts.

    looooooooool

    Thanked by 2Erisa bulbasaur
  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    @yokowasis said: For big provider, maybe this is not an issue. But this is a lowend. A lot of the provider here is a 1 man show. Why do you think it's a 1 man show ? because they can't afford to hire other, let alone pay for advertising fee.

    A lot of provider already suffered from paper thin margin ( e.g. @seriesn, @MikePT @Cam , lot of others). And your idea is to squeeze them for some more ?

    We are going to make some adjustments to account for cases like this.

    @yokowasis said: Now that LET going to WHIT route, what do you think would happened ? Now that provider have to shell $200 annually. This is just cpanel fiasco all over again.

    The extremely high fees charged for premium memberships at WHT is not a leading cause of why their audience faded away, at least in my opinion.

    @jar said: People will complain. Successful providers will pay it. Providers struggling to generate the value here will disappear. Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    The new fee model will reduce summer hosts, agreed.

    @jh said: But what bothers me is the message that this is somehow necessary for the forum. It costs peanuts to maintain a forum and the ad spots should cover it several times over. To me this sounds like @jbiloh has lost interest in the forum and needs cash to justify taking any time away from his main business. Fair enough, but don’t wrap it in that covering costs talk.

    All of the proceeds from this initiative will be reinvested back into the platform.

    @Nyr said: Biloh cares so little about the community that he was unable to stand up and make an official announcement. Only after someone else broke the news he managed to confirm the information.

    I spend an enormous amount of time on our community so I don't believe it's fair to say I don't care. I do agree that I should have sent an email to the providers rather than relying on the stick thread though. Lesson learned there.

    @abytecurious said: What if the Summerhost's intention is to pay 100$ upfront, amass a busload of accounts (easily recouping the 100$) and close in 6 months? I don't think putting up the 100$ is going to dissuade summerhosts, it might actually work better in their favor. Users would assume that the "provider" tag legitimizes the business and give a false sense of security.

    Since about a year ago we have increased the process related to approving provider tags. Now there is somewhat of a review that takes place. The goal is to reduce or eliminate summer host related scam risk.

  • @Erisa said:

    @cybertech said: but i would expect annual, biennial and triennial plans coming 🤣

    If you check the order page you can see those plans are indeed there, and they even come with small discounts.

    Interesting that Triennial costs more per year than Biennial. $186/y vs $180/y.

    I guess the pricing preys on people who have been trained to assume that bulk is cheaper, it's not actually expecting people to do the math.

    Thanked by 3Erisa bulbasaur adly
  • ErisaErisa Member
    edited March 2022

    @Ironia said:

    @Erisa said:

    @cybertech said: but i would expect annual, biennial and triennial plans coming 🤣

    If you check the order page you can see those plans are indeed there, and they even come with small discounts.

    Interesting that Triennial costs more per year than Biennial. $186/y vs $180/y.

    I guess the pricing preys on people who have been trained to assume that bulk is cheaper, it's not actually expecting people to do the math.

    Ha I actually didn't notice that either, so I guess I would have been preyed on too. Maybe whoever set it up did their math incorrectly? Willing to bet human error for this one.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited March 2022

    @jbiloh said: The new fee model will reduce summer hosts

    But scams are highly lucrative, so I don't know, they would feature more prominently than legit ppl AND look like endorsed in some way.

  • @cybertech said:

    @stefeman said:

    @cybertech said:

    @abytecurious said:

    @jar said: Summer hosts will largely be a distant memory.

    What if the Summerhost's intention is to pay 100$ upfront, amass a busload of accounts (easily recouping the 100$) and close in 6 months? I don't think putting up the 100$ is going to dissuade summerhosts, it might actually work better in their favor. Users would assume that the "provider" tag legitimizes the business and give a false sense of security.

    sure, it will dilute the perceived value of that tag

    I have an amazing solution to this.

    We could increase the price even more, so that scam operations would not be worth it.

    /s

    why would they raise barrier to entry?

    //s

    You win..

    Thanked by 2cybertech bulbasaur
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @Ironia said:
    Interesting that Triennial costs more per year than Biennial. $186/y vs $180/y.

    I guess the pricing preys on people who have been trained to assume that bulk is cheaper, it's not actually expecting people to do the math.

    $380/2yr = $190/yr, $560/3yr = $186/yr

    I think you need a new calculator :(

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    @Erisa said: Ha I actually didn't notice that either, so I guess I would have been preyed on too. Maybe whoever set it up did their math incorrectly? Willing to bet human error for this one.

    Human error. Thanks for bringing to my attention, will get it fixed.

    Thanked by 1Erisa
This discussion has been closed.