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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Well, you're 2/2 my man. Definitely on brand with previous rollouts:
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/177703/psa-provider-tag-fee-implementation/
That website is a joke.
While we are on a topic of fake reviews, I encourage people to look at comment section on LEB
For example here https://lowendbox.com/blog/perfect-quality-hosting-offers-service-from-moldova-to-hong-kong-1gb-for-12eur-year/#comments
Spammed with obviously fake reviews, that Biloh entertains and even replies to.
PQ is not the only provider with such blatant fake reviews, LEB staff had to specifically disable comments filtering for providers that most certainly paid them for it.
Edit: some more
https://lowendbox.com/blog/cheap-dedi-deal-in-france-128gb-ram-e5-for-only-69-month/#comments
https://lowendbox.com/blog/review-of-gthost-servers-15-minute-setup-at-17-locations/#comments
https://lowendbox.com/blog/kvm-and-openvz-7-yearly-vps-offers-in-usa-france-and-canada-hostnamaste-2/#comments
Judging by how similar the pattern is, with several providers, I personally think LEB staff is responsible for these fake comments, and paid for by scummy providers.
Thanks for pointing these out, we will take a look. Seems like some low quality comments are getting past LowEndBox's Akismet Anti-spam plugin.
These things are cleaned up. Looks like a combination of:
This has been implemented on the dev site and will be in production today. Thanks for the great suggestion!
The bigest question. Does serververify stays free or do you implement a payment option in the future?
Will "lifetime"/one-time purchase services have their own category?
LOL a fair question around here.
How so? A user with my LET username seems to exist, that has a link to my LET profile... and a YABS benchmark that's confusingly mislabeled and seems to have been scraped from a LET comment. My email doesn't exist in the system... so... what gives?
Any way to introduce filters ? Let's presume I wanna see who has the highest score on 4GB RAM and 2 vCPU or something like that ... that's be awesome
I'll PM you.
This is a great idea. What are the filters you would like to see?
Well don't wanna be an asshole and ask for everything but ... Yeah. Everything.
Literally right now I'm looking for 4vCPU with 8 gigs or RAM on roughly 100 gb NVME.
Would be nice to have "how many vCPU" / "how much RAM" / "type of storage" / etc .. stuff like that. And then sort that stuff out on what provider has the highest score. Or th lowest and so on ...
So basically would be nice to have filters for the 'hardware components' of a VM/VDS/DS ... if I can call it like that.
Makes sense. We will work on this.
I like the design of the Website 🙂
I have a question:
How can you prove where does the result really come from?
They have confirmed multiple times
Its via AI
What proof is needed?
I wonder if the users who help grow this project will receive some kind of reward or just a thank you? Are they finalizing a 2025 project with reviews from 2021-2022-2023 using inaccurate data from forums like LET/LOWENDBOX?
Awesome!!
I tried to benchmark a few VPS and the weighting seems weird. The more expensive servers / high end servers or virtual machines sure get better scores, but I'm not sure they are necessarily a better value.
Some of the benchmarks I submitted were also deleted rather than approved.
The VPS for KhanWebHost in Texas are displaying as being located in Pakistan.
I need to delete a few myself. Some of the VPS plans had 1GB of memory and 1GB of swap yet the GB6 test failed.
I won't be posting any more benchmarks. I'll post them in the thread for the deal or the dedicated thread.
Sad truth this is. Benchmarks are turning against the very low-end oversold offers.
If your GeekBench test filed that could be why the benchmark wasn't published.
Thanks for the feedback. We are working hard to make things better.
No, some succeeded and they were deleted and others failed and they were published.
One suggestion for network testing. I don't know the exact method of graduation, but I suspect that it is based on a grade based on either 1 Gbit or 10 Gbit. If you see a speed of less than 1 or 10Gbit on the port, then the real network speed will marked as F. However, this is not the correct graduation, because many ports are set to lower values (for example, 100Mbit - 500Mbits), and even if the test result is within plan limits, the results are shown as an F.
Adding to this, many people like myself skip iperf and use nws, in case iperf is not found, the score is very affected - shows F for network and top 100% which doesn't make sense.
I am actually skeptical of all ratings, because synthetic tests in most cases don't show anything useful. But if people used ratings based on reality, it would be better.
Aren't you a bit harsh there? After all, annamae92 wrote that DigitalOcean was "quite slow", while tito49 wrote that they were "notably sluggish", and block_marisa called them "noticeably slow". And also their reports about their favoured provider differs drastically; e.g. one said the performance was "superior" while another called it "significantly better".
That clearly shows that anonymized reviewer 1, anonymized reviewer 2, and anonymized reviewer 3 are totally, completely different NPCs and that the anonymizer used tried hard to find (or create) different reviews.
But what can you do when a certain provider and its diverse shopfronts just are consistently supreme? In such a case one can't but modestly laud oneself.
Or maybe the reviewers confused DigitalOcean and MassiveGrid? Stranger things have been seen on that site ...
Certainty of my take: 87% or 24%, depending on which anonymizer is active.
I had a few direct conversations with @jbiloh and got the impression that he actually is a decent and likeable person. Some experiences though made me doubt that and that new site, the obvious use of AI, and the lying about it feel like nails in the coffin.
I'd very much like to find back to my original impression, but some help would be nice. Sometimes I wonder who really is behind some of his actions or whether he really is so hardcore profit driven.
Well, whatever, I'm just a single LET user, but one that accepts the "man vs. AI" (reviews) challenge. And my advice re. the new "Massive(Pseudo)Reviews" site is to simply ignore it. I'm quite confident that in the long run it'll be a success - in terms of visits and clicks - thanks to clueless victims - and AI scrapers! Isn't that funny? - but we LET users shouldn't dignify that site by visiting, or even just talking about it.
Fake reviews not fixed? No worry.
"soft-launch" part 3 - emails went to LEB/LET users.
@jbiloh Not sure if this has been raised before, but it looks like CPU scores are being ranked without considering the number of cores.
for example, this VPS has 1 vCPU and 1449 single core score (and 1451 multi core), yet it's ranked D (Top 59.5%).
Meanwhile, this VPS, has similar single core score (1393) but, because it has more cores, it's ranked A (Top 9.17%).
is this fair? should CPU rankings be grouped by the number of vCPUs?
we also have a few reviews on Trustpilot, how can we upload those to the platform?
Nice site to use. Good information to have available.
I am looking at this now.