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
What you're seeing here is the impact of the multiple cores influencing the GB multi score. As we try to measure a VPS' ability to perform workload more cores in this case dramatically increases its capability and therefore it's processor performance and grading.
Are benchmarks automatically scraped from the YABS thread?
Why do only some providers seemingly have these AI, err, anonymized reviews? What mechanisms are in place for review or benchmark verification?
Seems like another front to promote the house brands.
HI @jsg!
Thanks for the comments. We are still taking feedback and making changes to the new platform. Since the soft launch here on LowEndTalk for example we've made about 20 front facing enhancements and bug fixes. We aren't going to stop either, and we'll keep making the site better each week.
We've axed about 45,000 reviews from the reviews portion of the site and we are still going through the rest. We are also going through the process of adding all lowendtalk reviews now. If you check back on the site in a few days you'll see plenty more improvements as we implement those changes plus others from recently received feedback here.
LowEndTalk reviews aren't in yet, and will be in the next few days.
If you have a review in the reviews category here on LowEndTalk you should see it populate by Wednesday or Thursday based on the rate we are manually reviewing and assigning them.
The platform is ad supported, just like LowEndBox and LowEndTalk.
Just like LowEndBox and LowEndTalk it will always be free to users. I don't believe in pay walls.
Reviews should require proof of service, quite frankly.
Any mechanism in place (other than personal morals) for me to create a user and say IncogNET is the best, then leave 1 star reviews for everyone else?
That or only legitimately submitted and verified reviews, such as those that are accompanied by proof of service, should be published. (If the goal is to have a trustworthy review site, that is).
As a feature suggestion: A provider should be able to submit a message to be displayed on their profile.
Will consider this, thank you.
Another host suggested we should add the ability for a provider to reply to reviews. We agreed and already implemented this a week or two ago.
It doesn't quite make sense to me :-) what's the intended message for customers when they look at the rankings? for example, when I see a list of VPSs ranked D, does that mean the provider is bad? not really - it may simply be because the benchmarks are all on low specifications.
Couple of minor bugs:
When on https://serververify.com/user/benchmarks, the title shows as "Edit Profile":
When on https://serververify.com/user/providers, there is a 'Pending' provider called "HostinPK", that I've never heard of, nor have I ever tried to 'manage':
Does it take a while for reviews to update? I posted one and it isn't visible. It says 0/5 stars when I put 4.8/5. Thanks.
Looking into this now.
Nice
This is what I was trying to figure out how to say when I said it sure ranked the expensive VPS I have much better than all the rest, yet that expensive one doesn't seem like the best value to me.
Adding to this… I think it would be more helpful for rankings to be grouped either by resources - or by a validated price point (verified by the provider). This way you can sort by cores or price in addition to rankings. Which would show true value to resource rankings.
It’s very misrepresenting for rankings to all be poor because they’re all user uploaded on that providers cheapest plan for example.
As we are now asking for price of service upon submission we will be introducing a data metric soon but we need more data first.
The algorithm has a grading adjustment to help balance out the letter and color grading a little bit (for vps with 1 or few cpu cores). That said, the value/cost/performance concept is a good one and we are now collecting data to help enable this feature soon.
Does the future reviews on lowendtalk should be covered under the CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND licenses to stop scrape of this “automated tool”?
I do not want any of my reviews be re-published.
Up to 248 user submitted benchmarks on ServerVerify
LET really should have a comedy category.
This is
Nothing in between considering the fact AI generated anonymized reviews and @jbiloh had to axe 45k+ reviews and counting
And soft launch turned into a semi-hard launch thanks to the email blast sent out
Yeah, something worked on for over a year. Sure.
I'm dedicated to making the platform better and better. Maybe one day you'll find some value in it.
Only if you find value in what we're trying to tell you.
I did not appreciate the email blast as it's still unfinished and in my previous wall of writing in this thread, I said it was a great idea with shit execution, and your reviews were tainted so we should have started all over again.
I had another look and it still looks half baked and it hasn't been explained how you will scrape from LET.
I also find the "grade" absolutely worthless. In a VPS, it might perform badly in compute, but what if the disk and network is really good? What if the feature set of the panel is extremely flexible? Does it get a bad grade still? How can we tell from oversold hosts apart?
Oh and the ads for ColoCrossing subsidiaries? Nah. Unwelcomed after what happened.
This screams of corporate shit with no involvement from the community on how this should have been built. I hate the whole model of building a minimal viable product and this doesn't even meet that.
In rare defense of John, the timeline of a year may be accurate.
I tried to claim my provider profile with my @incognet.io email. It would not work. It seems that they yanked the email from my LET profile during a limited period where I was using a @myprivateinbox.com email, as I wanted to test receiving mail when that was still a work in progress. That was in use late last year sometime as I recall, but only very shortly.
Email blast was successfully mitigated by @jar . Right to spam. Thank you!
Oh how lovely... Another thing that were only just finding out now.
Yeah, not thrilled about having an account created for me on a 3rd party site that I didn't opt in. Just assumed to claim a provider profile page you needed to use an email address from that provider, not the personal or temporary email used on a 3rd party platform (LET) last year.
Plenty, maybe even a majority, of thoughtful suggestions and critiques have been incorporated into the site over the past month during the LET release period.
We are going to keep improving it every day and won't stop.
Glad you like the concept, and hopefully one day you'll like the outcome.
The concept is actually older than a year.
It started as LowEndMark with a very specific and limited purview, and after a few months we changed the name to ServerVerify as the scope of the project increased significantly.
Jon. I said it "was" a great idea... Now I'm calling it complete garbage and it is highly unlikely I'll "like" the outcome.
You can remove my email from Server verify thanks and you can stop sending me unsolicited marketing emails that I did not ask for (yet you opted me in anyway).
Oh, I misunderstood you then.
I'm going to keep working hard at this new element of the platform. All critiques, even tough ones, are welcome.
As for the email you received about ServerVerify, I trust it didn't cause you too much discomfort. If it did, I am sorry. Please hit unsubscribe at the bottom and we won't ever send you an email again of that nature.