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
FWIW: I am nothing to do with my LET reviews being - as I consider it - stolen for that other site.
And NO, of course nobody checked with me. I have no idea how they come to those numbers.
Depending on what LLM and model was used, bias is unknown. Plus there have been instances by folks saying that ColoCrossing affiliated entities have always scored higher compared to others. So there's that.
Hiw does one differentiate real and AI generated reviews? Especially herere sources are never linked.
Totally understand and agree. This is a great idea badly executed (in iur lens). But this may have another motive - using this new site to simply drive traffic without any actual relevance to the content.
You still think this site was spit out and took over a year to build? I think the idea and concept is old but execution was done in the past month or so.
Vibe coding is good. But it needs input and direction from humans to think rationally. Here everything eas designed and implemented by LLM based on 2 sentence input in the original prompt
See, this is my complaint. They're importing reviews from LowEndTalk, but these reviews are not written with ServerVerify or their ranking metrics in mind. Then, whoever is importing the review, assigns whatever ranking they want, potentially with bias.
Thank you for confirming that LowEndTalk users who have auto-created ServerVerify profiles aren't independently copy/pasting their own reviews to the site, and that it's being done by someone else.
I still don't get why the site couldn't just launch empty. Not like there is no shortage of providers here who'd participate in a cooperative giveaway for a launch-party promotion to encourage users to self-submit reviews and rankings for a chance to win from a pool of prizes or something. Basically, there is now zero trust in the site and it'll only serve to funnel traffic to house-brands and to be a web property with fake metrics.
Great idea.
I hereby licence all my content from LET (including but not limited to reviews, benchmarks, threads and comments) with CC-BY-ND to not be used on any other platforms (including ServerVerify) without attribution given to the me as creator.
Sorry @jbiloh - I do not wish to contribute to ServerVerify in any way, shape or form. This is my choice.
The below exists in the https://lowendbox.com/privacy-policy/
3.1 Ownership and License
“User Content” includes posts, reviews, benchmarks, offers, comments, media uploads, or any other submission.
By submitting User Content, you grant WNY IT Services Inc. a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, aggregate, publish, translate, distribute, and display such content across all components of the Platform, as well as in promotional or derivative works.
You retain copyright in your original work but grant us broad rights for reuse.
To which nobody knew this was updated by the way. No email. No notification. No opt out either.
I doubt they will listen or care. They made that clear after repeatedly told to pull the plug and start again.
I wouldn't trust it even if they were to start again. Damage is already done and it's full of taint.
I know, but I must express my frustration with this, simply because it makes me feel better for taking the proper action. If someone want to be immoral, it is their choice - I can't control beasts, monsters, or the wild nature around me. I adjusted even my signature because I clearly don't like it when someone takes advantage of communities formed by people together. Besides, what happens on LET should stay on LET.
He even took away the right to be forgotten although when I read that it didnt appear it would delete any content that a user has provided to the forum. But now even that is gone.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250901010704/https://lowendbox.com/privacy-policy/
If you have an account on this site, or have left comments, you can request that we erase any personal data we hold about you. This does not include any data we are obliged to keep for administrative, legal, or security purposes.
I just got back home from a 3 day work trip so I am in catch up mode.
Will do my best to address some of the questions here.
Here we go:
This is fixed now. Your URL is now: https://serververify.com/hosting-providers/hosteroid
We are starting the process of manually processing reviews from LowEndTalk. That means we are checking them for quality and provider assignment and then approving them to the platform for publishing. It's going to take probably 7-10 days to complete this process as we are going slowly to insure accuracy on the first pass.
We are still improving the process to ensure the highest quality outcome in (1) standard of review and (2) consistency. We are using AI to provide a recommended rating based on the content of the review.
Sharing the site with LowEndTalk initially with 70K reviews sounded good on paper but in reality the quality wasn't good and it was a mistake. We've pivoted and we are still cleaning things up each day. It's a manual process and it takes time. Today we are at about 19K reviews.
Great suggestion, we will work this into the site.
Working hard to make it better.
This is a bug due to the removal of reviews that were of poor quality. We are fixing it now. Thanks for pointing it out.
Two things here:
Do you think users should be able to edit reviews post publishing? If the consensus is yes we can build that feature this week or next.
If you'd rather your reviews not be shared on ServerVerify we can remove them. The quality of your reviews are great, and I like the idea of them hitting as many eyeballs as possible. Up to you!
In an update to be pushed to production in the next few days the source on many (most) reviews will be published just like the benchmark source is published on the benchmark page.
Sorry to hear that. As you requested we removed you from ServerVerify.
Where's the bad reading rating when you need it?
Jon read my post again. You've removed me sure, but what about everyone else who you didn't ask? Notify there was a privacy policy update or even an opt out option?
I'm legitimately convinced an AI replied on behalf without how tone deaf and how many times we haven't been reading.> @default said:
Jon you really should read this and think very carefully and hard why this site should be unlaunched.
This is super cool. Just got some new benchmarks: https://serververify.com/user/profile/alt_
He didn’t publish this review. Your AI did.
add a filter to find "best" performing VPS by xCyR
I would be most interested to find 2c4r
and then a "popular" chipset filter like Epyc Milan, Epyc Genoa, Epyc Turin, Xeon Gold, Xeon E5v2, Ryzen 9xxx, Ryzen 7xxx, Ryzen 5xxx
Well, that doesn't really change the that it was not my rating. I was never asked about how many stars I would give, nor was it included in my original review text.
This should be easier for serververify team to understand:
Would be awesome
Yes definitely, editing reviews should be an option. I also think users should also be asked if they want they review published (via an email or in some serververify.com view) or at the very least have the option to remove their review from the site.
Contacting the support to remove the stolen reviews is kinda intimidating. There should be an option to remove them with a single click or even better - users should be asked for consent for their reviews to be published there.
Also, this now looks pretty ironic:
Yea, as we all know poor quality reviews would never get accepted on serververify. Confirm it @emgh .
Please don't delete it, its genuine review sir
[Feature Request] After submitting benchmark allow user to change "recommended" blank or yes or no.
Even months later as disappointment is not always immediate
Yes it s genuine confirm it
What's interesting to me is how accurate any reviews imported from LET could possibly be except for plain benchmarks from the standard scripts.
Every single review is going to have to be massaged by whatever tooling (see how I didn't mention AI?) (oops~!) in some fashion.
I think importing reviews may have seemed like a great way to fill up before launch but how could it possibly have gone right?
I'm not involved in this particular witch hunt but I wonder if it might not be less work (and bad feelings) to relaunch and "just" (hah) request reviewers to publish directly.
The reviews were stolen without our consent. The benchmarks were also stolen without our consent. He simply did not ask, and simply took, like any proud manager living by that popular "can do attitude".
If he would have asked for reviews directly, things would have been fair; but would anyone provide free reviews so someone can make profits out of their voluntary work, money spent on offers, and time? I dare to guess not.
Many times business people in history tend to become immoral, because they want, they see an opportunity to take, and grab without asking - since there are no legal consequences (and if there are, nobody will go down that path due to judiciary costs). Therefore we are where we are. ServerVerify is launched and there is nothing LET can do about it, except for swallowing this one too. If any of us would be rich, we would not be part of a low-end community to begin with, therefore we might as well accept being exploited for profits and move on with our lives. Sharks will win, as always, because these guys are willing to do very ugly and nasty things, which other fish can't do (because other fish respect themselves and their environment).
We are working to develop advanced/detailed search and ability to sort by these performance metrics. We expect to launch these features in the next week or so.
We will think through this and consider it, thank you!
We are averaging about a 65% discard rate on the LowEndTalk reviews so far (as we manually review them before approving them). What remains is consistent and the content is not altered.
1,237 pages of fake reviews by users who aren't on LET. It's a new project, why have so many if the quality is poor?
You don't have to give quantity, you have to give quality
At least CC does pay for the AI
Your screenshot shows a page of only reviews from LowEndTalk to be clear.
The database started with 71,000 reviews. Launching with that many without enough manual review was a mistake.
We have removed 52,000 so far. We are reviewing the rest now for quality.
Meanwhile we are still manually reviewing and adding reviews from LowEndTalk and LowEndBox.
reboot the site, and stop lying with "manual reviewing" such a lie.
Oh I just meant the parsing and interpretation must be insane to make any sense of, is it really worth the hassle vs. starting from a blank slate. I mean the fact you're doing it that way means it is, I'm just conversationally backseat driving. I might have just coined a new phrase!
Curious that you imported my 3 good reviews but forgot to include my terrible experience with Cheap Windows VPS / ServerHost / VPSACE / vpshostingservice.co. A blatant scam that is a featured provider
Such a joke of a website.
Notice all the posts along this line and related to the changes in the very weak to start with privacy policy are ignored. . I've know for awhile now the purpose of this site is to drive people to the entities that they own/used to own/ use their infrastructure. Been living with that. This is a whole new level. I'm just Beginning to understand the need for LES. If only all the content here was over there ...
Clever, I love it.
There are negative reviews for all hosting companies on the platform, including provider you mentioned specifically. So no tin hats needed here.
My guess is other reviews you've made haven't gone through the manual approval process yet.