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
Indeed, for me the site feels noticeably smoother. Uses a bit less resources than before too.
Thank you for improving this
That is great news!
CPU load still the same, no change here.
Try a hard refresh for me please.
Dones't change anything, still laggy, cpu is hogging an entire core still.
Strange, I don't know how to explain that.
In my case personally it went from 8% of CPU -> 0-1%.
A couple other folks have seen similar changes.
Is it any better in Chrome vs. Firefox?
Just reproduced on a windows machine too, still same issue.
I also tested it on my phone, it lags so hard, my browser takes several seconds to close.
So yea fixed it is not.
It is improved, not fixed. Stay positive!
If I enable javascript, the CPU still works at 40% unnecessarily.
It's the same
Could be due to software-rendered graphics if the video hardware or driver is obsolete.
Yes, everything seems to load very significantly faster. Well done!
That said, I don't get why providers themselves seem to be allowed to review themselves! Current example: @VeloxMedia - whom I really like and purchased a VPS from. At the same time to make it even worse, or more correctly, nonsensical (IMO), their disk and network performance are rated 'C' and 'D' which does not at all reflect the benchmark results nor my review.
Plus I'd like to make a suggestion: yes, do provide all the scores but also in relation to the price!
In fact VeloxMedia is a good example because it's a abt. $20/year VPS! Of bloody course some results like e.g. IOps of a $20/year server are bound to be quite different from results of a $8/mo VPS!
So, in this case there should only be 'A' grades with maybe, just maybe one single 'B' if one wants to be very picky.
Will look into this further.
Perfect, glad to hear some people are seeing better performance on the site. We will keep improving it.
We are collecting this data now and will be publishing a performance/price index soon.
BTW, if tests are incomplete and/or given a bad grade, the user can delete them at any time.
Thank you for the mention.
I agree with you @jsg
@jbiloh I know we all have offers way out of the suggested price range on our websites but I personally feel it is unfair when you look on the leaderboards and those prices wouldn't allow for an offer to be posted - for example, this: https://serververify.com/benchmarks/6d660b92-8d51-419c-9f6e-afea98920b25 how is that fair? $192 monthly VPS plan, of course it will rank high when no one else is on the machine and that was posted.
We should not be allowed to review, run benchmarks and have it posted by ourselves- I can run a crazy VPS and get all high marks but then it's not real and very misleading.
My 2 cents:
I think that adding price restrictions would exclude a lot of servers on the platform and wouldn't really do any good. There are plenty of users who want to look at benchmarks for high-priced servers.
LowEndTalk and ServerVerify are both fundamentally different platforms, one is dedicated to posting cheap server deals and the other is a benchmark aggregator that tries to collect as much data as possible on any benchmarks it can.
But see my answer to the last question for my thoughts on how this could be improved, because I agree that the current implementation need to be improved to factor in the pricing of servers.
AFAIK the benchmark was not taken on an empty node, though indeed it was a new node that didn't have a lot allocated and I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't be on the leaderboard if it were on a hypervisor that was 100% allocated.
Promotions usually run when providers deploy new nodes or have a lot of availability. There are a lot of benchmarks on LET which likely come from VMs that were deployed on empty or near-empty nodes. This would be hard to control for.
This particular benchmark is from a real VPS plan that you can purchase, but I agree that maybe providers shouldn't be able to submit their own benchmarks. I only did it because I saw that there were other providers on the leaderboard submitting their own benchmarks.
However,
The main issue that I see with the platform is that the price is just not weighed into the numbers.
I still think that it is cool to see a top leaderboard with the absolute fastest VPS or dedicated server, but there really should be some more leaderboards that factor in price because that is a determining factor to most.
Maybe it would be cool to add a leaderboard that can be sorted by price, for example, the top performing virtual servers under $8 or something like that.
I totally agree, and I can't even argue with you (goddammit
)
Please do not think I was bashing, you were just an example as you were at the top, I like the idea of that platform but the fact we can rig the system to take every leader spot is truly unfair to people who don't want to cheat the system but I understand why you did it!
I was assuming it would be a empty or new-ish node because it's when we all do our benchmarks - this is why I leave them to clients, you get real world data and I haven't twisted it to my agenda.
I appreciate your 2cents and hopefully some changes can be made where it's more fair and some limits on hosts are set so we don't rig the system.
We are all actually on the same page, because in a few weeks time we will be releasing the ServerVerify Price/Performance Index that helps people see what provider is offering the best performance at the best value. We can't do it right now because we don't have enough data yet.
That's why we are now asking for the price of the service when benchmarks are ran.
Yes I understand completely and I agree as well
i gave a chance but once i saw 'GPT' reviews... no way.
you had the opportunity to make something from the scratch with real user reviews, since you have LET to promote, but you always take the path to fk up things
Some recent updates from the last two days:
Leaderboard now shows All-Time and Monthly Leaders for Reviews + Benchmarks: https://serververify.com/leaderboards
More speed enhancements to the GUI and accessibility improvements
Added badges for Power Reviews to public User Profiles:
Improvements to algorithm and data presentation around benchmarks that do not have all components completed.
We are still collecting information relative to price/performance for the upcoming launch of our ServerVerify Performance Index. Soon TM.
Your top providers still using fake AI reviews:
https://serververify.com/hosting-providers/evolution-host
.
.
Etc etc.
I still don't understand why you don't just remove every review that wasn't directly submitted to the site or scraped from LET/LEB.
Any random provider that is gaining dozens of reviews with obvious marketing lingo within a few days should be kicked to the curb. If I had dozens of fake LET accounts writing fake IncogNET reviews, I'd expect to be banned and shunned from the community forever, as it would be completely deserved.
Why allow this on ServerVerify?
You're making great strides in improving the actual functionality of the platform, but the data is corrupt and it's a completely untrustworthy source.
Actually, the number 2 host as well:
https://serververify.com/hosting-providers/hostsailor
I'm not going to do the work for you and go through all the providers with dozens of reviews to point out the fact that you're using fake, AI generated slop. Maybe the provider themselves are doing this. Either way, it's bad data.
If these top providers are not guilty of doing this themselves, it's something they should be upset with as anyone with more than two braincells to rub together will read those and see they're obviously fake reviews, and think negatively of them.
However ff these providers are adding these fake reviews themselves, then they need to be banned and publicly shamed. Their profile should be locked and updated to state that they participate in unethical reviewing practices, etc...
Platform is improving, but the data is still very bad.
Nice, love me some progress.
Still working through the data manually. About 80-85% finished so far. Once finished I am feeling good about where we will be.
We need another week to finish the manual review, imports, etc. Once completed we'll be in a good spot.
Lots more features and stuff coming down the pipe really soon, too.
We spent some more time on this last night and got through more of the data audit and review cleanup.
We're down to 5 more features in the project tracker.
Another platform that assumes "Receive emails from administrators about my account status" means "send me every fucking feature mail".
Does being on the Dedicated Server Leader Board give you any special bragging rights?
Cool website, pretty neat. We are enjoying it, hopefully it will continue with growth and bring validity to providers posting benchmarks.
My IPv6 Stardust instance from Scaleway cost 0,43 eur/month only, but I can't enter that amount (about 0.50 usd) to price field.
Thanks for letting us know. We will fix it.
Any update?