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
Who are you trying to fool?
You mean this random 2.6 star in the other brand?
Why is this a featured provider? What's your criteria?
Quoting original "review":
You're still advertising then as a 5-star provider here: https://lowendbox.com/blog/1-vps-1-usd-vps-per-month/ despite being a clear scam, and you know about it, but since you're affiliated with ColoCrossing/HostPapa, who cares, right?
All ColoCrossing/HostPapa brands in that page
totally unbiased!
What problem did you have with CheapWindowsVPS? They've been around for like 10+ years and huge.
You can look at my original review, in which I tagged you.
Can you also not ignore the rest of my comment?
Maybe some of us need move on to other green pastures (me included). There is a limit to how much difficulty one can face. Everything has to end at some point, but life goes on through changes.
I looked at it. What would you like to see them do to make you happy?
Still waiting for my questions to be answered Jon. It's in bold.
@zGato grab 'em balls while you can
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on some of those points. The direction we’re taking with ServerVerify is intentional, and we’re going to keep refining it with feedback from the wider community. I’m confident the platform will show its value over time.
I recommend removing the "Top Providers" section, as it currently lacks accuracy. Some of the listed providers don’t even have profiles on Serververify or have zero reviews. If the goal is to position Serververify as a neutral review and benchmarking platform, featuring such a list from the outset could undermine that perception.
I suggest to be more sceptical about theoretical website purpose and look more realisticaly. It is made to monetise let/leb scattered data for the second time. Rough plan:
So yea, this is just data spinning. If you have suggestion how to improve that - I would be curious.
What's status of this? I'm curious of the source of most these reviews
Reviewing and deleting 52.000 reviews for removal in a week or two is apparently possible.
How many posts do you currently have pending for review per day, so that handling auto imported (and therefore LET-reviewed) reviews is not possible (coincidentally if these are negative) in timely manner. I kinda have the feeling that some bad reviews might intentionally get delayed in their display, my two cents.
Also, what are the metrics/prerequisites of a review from LET to be auto imported? Does it have to be in the Reviews category? Please enlighten us
Blatantly ignorant after he just linked his review (and apparently tagged you too).. Curios if your LetLM AI would rate it with 4.5/5 or 5/5, due to money paid unknown reasons
@jbiloh and @LETsters
I've thought a bit about it and here's my current view (which, depending on how this evolves may change):
-1) "stolen" - I myself have been a victim of that, BUT: Did they really steal from us? After all, what they took and reuse here, was meant to be public!.
But 2: "IP"/authorship. The relevant facts in my view are mainly two; (a) benchmark results are (hopefully) NOT authored but merely the output of some benchmark program or script, plus in the case of yabs those results very often also are published on some other site as well (so, good luck explaining how your supposed authorship rights were harmed ...).
And (b) Do you really want to bring this to a court? And if so, where? Keep in mind that it's neither fun nor cheap nor easy to sue across country borders.
IMO this (not really an) issue boils down to legally impractical and flaky - but of emotional significance!
Of bloody course we don't like our work, even if viewed realistically it wasn't much more than entering some command plus doing some clicks on LET and copy-pasting the results, to just willy-nilly be used by someone else. Similarly of bloody course we don't like to see that said somebody also copied our accounts to another website.
-2) The persons involved and HOW it was done and what for.
For a start: companies don't make website, people do. But yes, it seems that the very same legal entity which also owns LET and LEB, also owns ServerVerify (I intentionally did not write "SV", because that needs to be earned. LET earned to be considered and treated like a well known player in the field. ServerVerify so far is but yet another "compare hosts and products" site among many others).
Which leads us directly to the next - and very major - point: WHAT is that new site meant to be? A review collection? A promotional marketing tool? Or bloody what?
One thing seems clear to me: it shouldn't be just another "take our assets and package them differently" repackaging of LEB/LET content, and to make it worse, presented as a fait accompli to the real producers of most of said content!
-3) Credibility - Let's be honest: I don't think that jbiloh and his LEB/LET/the new site do have the credibility absolutely required to run a true "comparative site". They are KNOWN to, or at the very least largely seen as, basically running a clan with plenty of bias as well as "Nope I don't work for X anymore" but at the same time "Well, I doing some consulting for X" vageness, some would even call it "being slippery".
Plus, to make it much worse, that project started with a clusterfuck and what many perceived as very shady.
To put it clearly: I'm all for giving a second chance, and I'd welcome (and support with my work) a site that offers comparisons of providers and products.
But such a site needs credibility, a good measure of transparency and, probably the toughest barrier, objectivity that is, to put it clear a glass: NO favouritism, no nepotism, just fair and objective grading based on cold hard facts and data!
Oh, and answers, e.g. and in particular
TL;DR I'm willing to give both jbiloh and that site a second chance, but I'm not willing to trust, let alone support a questionable or even shady site. So, I hope jbiloh and the - unknown so far - team get their act together and sail straight from now on!
As for us I think that we should stop being overly sensitive, too emotional or even appalled. At the end of the day it's simple: That site now does exist, no matter how we feel. And we do have some power because that site not only needs visitors but it also needs input and engagement. Being angry and/or appalled very rarely effects positive change. Thinking and acting constructively however does!
Have a nice weekend everyone.
Not OK at all
I scraped the benchmarks data and made a lil website with ram filter
- https://jadeops.github.io/servers/
Simple and elegant all the information that is needed
This @plumberg
And yet here we are....
Well, all goes its way, but a yabs doesnt make a host automaticly marked as good. All outages and problems should be mentioned too. All deadpools have no rights to be listed.
Its like trustpilot at the end.
@imok Y U SHILL?!
Only one review.
https://serververify.com/user/profile/imok
This is cool, thanks for sharing. Great inspiration for how we can make the ServerVerify interface better.
This morning we pushed an update that fixes some bugs and tweaks the data inputs for some of the Leaderboard and this section as well. As more data comes into the site we are going to keep tweaking things.
We didn't manually review every (anonymized) review we've deleted between when we initially shared the site on LowEndTalk and today. We are, however, manually reviewing every new review that gets added directly and gets pulled from LowEndBox and LowEndTalk. There is a big back log and it's going to take weeks before we have everything published online.
So bunch of my ”reviews” were now scraped and some artifical AI rating added, and it says I’m the author of them
Is this a joke
thanks for the scraping. Made it easy.
WFT
Am I reading this right. Is it saying that I posted a yabs on CharityHost in the Header ?
@jbiloh
Please remove this inaccurate Benchmark result that is attributed to me.
https://serververify.com/benchmarks/e5736211-f266-4c13-a10e-58c15b2a0171
Furthermore, Please do not include my posts anywhere else.
https://serververify.com/benchmarks/e5736211-f266-4c13-a10e-58c15b2a0171
This is fixed, thanks for pointing it out. There are still a couple cases hanging out there of mis-assigned benchmarks. We are correcting them as they surface.
To add to this, the better deals a provider has given me, the worse the YABS is (ofc) and the more this hurts their page
@DigiRDP was kind enough to give me TWO $3/yr VMs (and lots of others as well) and for this their profile page looks like they’re the world’s shittiest provider
We are refining this approach still. If there is anything that you feel is inaccurate please flag the review and we will fix it rapidly.
It is true that providers that focus on low performing VPS services (or have a higher concentration of such) will have lower ServerVerify scores on the benchmarking side of the data.
As their customers review their services hopefully they score well and therefore their star rating will improve (which is not connected to their average ServerVerify benchmark score).
Additionally, we are currently developing another datapoint that speaks to value (ie, performance vs. price) which hosts like this should reflect really positively on.
I'd like to have my username removed or anonymized from the benchmark, please. Up until recently that was an option on the privacy policy here. Please dont ignore this post. If you wont do it just say so here. Thanks
No problem, I'll send you a message.