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.
Feedback & Suggestions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If you're changing the rules on reviews, would it be possible to consider amending it to include a stipulation where an account must be active and have made X number of discussions or comments before the review? There's usually a lot of doubting and mockery when new members post a review as their first comment or thread and while it does seem rather dodgy, it's likely that some of them actually are legitimate. Why not impose a similar rule like the one you have for the top providers poll? If we're required to have at least 10 comments to vote in that poll, perhaps require the same before someone can write a review?
I can see this having a detriment on activity. LowEndTalk is not a post to host, there never has been (and probably never should be) a force reason to post. A "community" should have enough draw to entice users to be active and post on their own. (imo)
Can we fix this sodding issue with editing yet?
I cannot say I agree with you. For one thing, why impose a minimum of 10 comments before people are allowed to vote in the top providers' poll if it is, as you say, a detriment on activity? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I always construed that to mean the mods want to weed out the sockpuppets and people being paid to vote for certain providers. Why shouldn't that extend to actual reviews instead of shunting it all to the Cest Pit? The reviewers are not hosting anything; they're simply posting about their experiences with a particular host. They are not forced to post reviews either, so the post/comment limit would only apply if someone is very keen to review a provider they feel strongly about. When it's their first comment or thread ever and they've only just registered that day, it's hard to gauge how authentic their review is because they have no prior behaviour to judge them on.
And, as you're probably well aware, they also enforce similar rules on hosts ie. require them to have certain amounts of posts/comments before they can put up an offer. That has been around for a long time and does indeed force people to post if they hope to make a few sales in the community. Are you in support of taking that limit away, then?
I didn't know that was even a limit, so you have a fair point there. However, since voting up a host in the Top Provider poll has a much more lasting impact than a single review does, I can see why this would need to be semi-moderated.
Well, if I were to pay someone to write up a review; I would pay them to post too. Requiring some posts for someone to post up a review, with the only reason being to reduce the pay-per-review motif... is a bit construed. Especially since there is already a registration queue and manual approval to get into LowEndTalk as it is (which, is a completely different conversation, but seems to be being completely ignored right now...)
These are all fair points, however; it's worth noting that the quality of "reviews" lately has been a bit of a crapshoot, and the few good reviews (the recent jbarr one being a great example) get immediately trampled by the so called "community" I'd like to "protect". It makes me think frankly. Paid or not, that was one of the few well-written reviews that has been posted as of late.
As well, it's more than easy enough to rack up 10 posts (or however many amount) just posting / trolling in the Cest Pit, or posting / trolling in a GVH thread, or "posting" (trolling) anywhere else, which seems to be how anyone around here gets posts.
LowEndTalk / LowEndBox is not meant to be a marketplace, it's meant to be a place to communicate. That's why the offer limits and rules are there; it would turn into even more of a hell if it wasn't.
@GoodHosting
It can be argued that negative reviews can have equal lasting impact on the reputation of a provider as well, especially in the way said provider handles that situation. I haven't even been here all that long and already I've seen several reputable providers respond poorly to upset customers who weren't entirely in the wrong. It's enough for me to take them out of consideration the next time I purchase another VPS, a sentiment I've seen others echo.
Yes, a minimum post count will not make much of an impact if someone is being paid to make a few pointless comments or simply bears a deep grudge against a certain provider. But the same can be said for the top providers' poll; if a person is determined enough, there is no way to stop them from making several different sockpuppets using various proxies over a span of time and comment with some lame fluff while they wait for the next top providers poll to come along. Hand the accounts off to a few Fiverrs throughout the week once voting begins and boom, you've got yourself some wonderful voters. So why the need for any moderation at all?
I just don't think asking for a minimum of say, 10 comments to someone's name before they can post reviews is too much to ask. If nothing else, like I said, it's something you can take a look at to gauge whether that poster is a genuine member or simply posting random useless things in order to build their comment count up. At least this way you can easily tell whether someone is "racking up posts" as opposed to actually participating in conversations, rather than having nothing at all to go on.
All good points, I suppose it's something we should try.
Thanks. And for what it's worth, I sincerely think @jbarr's post would have been received differently by at least some members if he had more comments to his name. It was a fair review (I myself posted a mixed review of GVH a few months ago on another forum) and he doesn't strike me as a sockpuppet, but with zero prior activity on this forum it is hard not to question the authenticity of his review.
The "burn the witch" brigade would have screamed even if it was Gandhi himself.
And there's always a fanboy brigade that thinks their favourite providers can do no wrong, are forever blind to the instances where those providers actually aren't the rightful victims and tolerate behaviour they would otherwise condemn from others.
It goes both ways, really, and it's up to third parties to make their own informed decisions.
@GoodHosting (sigh, I always forget to tag.)
I can't upload an avatar. 9 out of 10 tries ends up with 404 for both the full image and the thumbnail. 1/10 tries ends up with a working full image, but 404 for the thumbnail. Can you please investigate why this happens? Thanks.
@Nowaker use an Email address that is tied to a Gravatar Account. That's pretty much what we all do.
@DalekOfSkaro Thanks. Seems I forgot to set an avatar for this particular e-mail. :-) However, I still have this angry face avatar.
@Nowaker: You bet'cha.
Seems it showed up after a while.
Reason for that is that the file has to be synced between all the Web servers for there are 8.
^^ lol that is not the reason that is part of the cause, anyhoo...... I would like to suggest people have to be members for 60 days before they can post an offer and must not have been idle for more than 10 days during that period.
But, but... My holiday!
you have been here more than 60 days so makes no diff
Point.
Flag buton in mobile theme.
Any update regarding SSL/HTTPS?
Cheers
Why would there be?
Its been stated before it is not currently in the works for various reasons.
Shared hosting section
http://lowendbox.com/about/
Alright, Fair enough...
There should be some sort of like toplist system like in game servers but for VPS Providers, Showing uptime and latency and the ability to vote for each company positive or negative.
No, just no.
Did I ask for your opinion?
Your on a public forum.
Right, Cheers.