Verified Hosts and Other Hosts

[Elcro]

Hello MCM,

Recently discussed on this thread: http://www.mc-market.org/threads/41248/page-2#post-498260 Dot-Tech LLC mentioned, and a few others. I think that MCM could use a 'Verified Hosts' Section for hosts that are approved by Mick and a section for 'Other Hosts' For any hosting providers that have not yet been approved by Mick.

Be sure to vote in the poll, and I hope to see this become a reality in the future.

Thanks,
Elcro

 

[Elcro]

Best idea yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1445181526,1445181160][/DOUBLEPOST]

He's around the right lines. I mean, you can't call a host bad based on reselling OVH though. A verified hosts section should just be hosts that are owned by 18+ individuals, and are real business ventures. The idea of 18+ isn't because under 18s can't run a host, but that's a legal requirement (16+ to be a director in the UK and some US states actually, but until 18+ you can't really register a business bank account and so on).

Personally I'd do this:

Criteria:

• Registered company. Most countries have company lookup features. In the EU, VAT registration may be required. Ensure the company is a company, and not a summer holiday venture
• Has been trading for more than 6 months (from the date the company was registered)
• At least someone in the host's support team should have knowledge on hardware and the technical end of things, unless they're hiring a sysadmin which is perfectly fine too. Basic way to find out if a host actually has common sense
• Fake client talks on live chat for 15 minutes, sees how professionally the support staff react. Ask some dumb questions. Are they patient? Do they have good grammar? Do they get mad at you eventually? Do they quit the chat? Yes, it wastes host time, but we've had other hosts come at us. I'd rather have an official forum user pretending to be a client using our time than another host trying to find out how we run our host. And I'm sure the other host will like this, being a verified host as a result. Oh, and this encourages host to be professional, as they're not sure who's a real client and who isn't

Basic 4 bullets. Registered and professional, essentially. How the company runs, whether their website is a template or whether they use OVH is their business. Only a few points matter.

Very well said David(Although my host has been up for only 4 months ) If Mick had to choose someone to help him with this, I nominate David.

 

[OptiBrine]

Best idea yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1445181526,1445181160][/DOUBLEPOST]

He's around the right lines. I mean, you can't call a host bad based on reselling OVH though. A verified hosts section should just be hosts that are owned by 18+ individuals, and are real business ventures. The idea of 18+ isn't because under 18s can't run a host, but that's a legal requirement (16+ to be a director in the UK and some US states actually, but until 18+ you can't really register a business bank account and so on).

Personally I'd do this:

Criteria:

• Registered company. Most countries have company lookup features. In the EU, VAT registration may be required. Ensure the company is a company, and not a summer holiday venture
• Has been trading for more than 6 months (from the date the company was registered)
• At least someone in the host's support team should have knowledge on hardware and the technical end of things, unless they're hiring a sysadmin which is perfectly fine too. Basic way to find out if a host actually has common sense
• Fake client talks on live chat for 15 minutes, sees how professionally the support staff react. Ask some dumb questions. Are they patient? Do they have good grammar? Do they get mad at you eventually? Do they quit the chat? Yes, it wastes host time, but we've had other hosts come at us. I'd rather have an official forum user pretending to be a client using our time than another host trying to find out how we run our host. And I'm sure the other host will like this, being a verified host as a result. Oh, and this encourages host to be professional, as they're not sure who's a real client and who isn't

Basic 4 bullets. Registered and professional, essentially. How the company runs, whether their website is a template or whether they use OVH is their business. Only a few points matter. Perhaps some exceptions to the registered company rule, but very, very rare exceptions.

We could have a site, where businesses who want to be verified will have to send in their business information. Of course, the information will be checked by staff members.

 

[MCHOST_David]

We could have a site, where businesses who want to be verified will have to send in their business information. Of course, the information will be checked by staff members.

They just need to send in the country and state they're registered in, their company name and company registration number, optionally a certificate of registration (not needed as you can check the public searches, certificates are easily forgeable as well, there's literally a template on MS Publisher for it). A VAT ID would be great too. All of this information is usually in the footer, at least the company name which is enough to conduct a search.

 

[Elcro]

I think that within the verified host, there should be 2 sub sections, Budget and Premium.. Because even though something like Shockbyte is verified, I sure wouldn't want to host a professional server with them.

I dont think we should have too many sub sections. Sounds a bit unnecessary.

 

[Elcro]

But it gets very hard for someone to tell if a host is actually high quality. Especially if they don't know much about hosting.

They can always ask for a vouch copy

 

[MCHOST_David]

I think that within the verified host, there should be 2 sub sections, Budget and Premium.. Because even though something like Shockbyte is verified, I sure wouldn't want to host a professional server with them.

I wouldn't advise that. Keep it simple. There won't be pages and pages of verified hosts. I'd imagine a maximum of 4 pages of verified hosts, similar to MCF. A potential customer would have the courtesy to see what's budget and what's premium. That kind of classification shouldn't be done. That's the point where the idea becomes tedious and ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1445181948,1445181895][/DOUBLEPOST]

Although my host has been up for only 4 months

Exceptions are something haha. Just be sure to make them rare, and take in more of other factors to compensate for the 2 months missing from the trading time. At the end of the day, these factors just say whether the host is going to be around for a while.

 

[tjrgg]

Best idea yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1445181526,1445181160][/DOUBLEPOST]

He's around the right lines. I mean, you can't call a host bad based on reselling OVH though. A verified hosts section should just be hosts that are owned by 18+ individuals, and are real business ventures. The idea of 18+ isn't because under 18s can't run a host, but that's a legal requirement (16+ to be a director in the UK and some US states actually, but until 18+ you can't really register a business bank account and so on).

Personally I'd do this:

Criteria:

• Registered company. Most countries have company lookup features. In the EU, VAT registration may be required. Ensure the company is a company, and not a summer holiday venture
• Has been trading for more than 6 months (from the date the company was registered)
• At least someone in the host's support team should have knowledge on hardware and the technical end of things, unless they're hiring a sysadmin which is perfectly fine too. Basic way to find out if a host actually has common sense
• Fake client talks on live chat for 15 minutes, sees how professionally the support staff react. Ask some dumb questions. Are they patient? Do they have good grammar? Do they get mad at you eventually? Do they quit the chat? Yes, it wastes host time, but we've had other hosts come at us. I'd rather have an official forum user pretending to be a client using our time than another host trying to find out how we run our host. And I'm sure the other host will like this, being a verified host as a result. Oh, and this encourages host to be professional, as they're not sure who's a real client and who isn't

Basic 4 bullets. Registered and professional, essentially. How the company runs, whether their website is a template or whether they use OVH is their business. Only a few points matter. Perhaps some exceptions to the registered company rule, but very, very rare exceptions.

In terms of length, I think 3 months is sufficient. This allows newer (but not completely new) hosts to become verified, but still requires the host to be open for some time. Any exceptions introduces a bias into the system and it should remain as unbiased as possible, so no exceptions should be made.

With the "fake client" thing, that also introduces a bias. You could log on to chat with an agent that just happens to be a jerk, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on the views of the company and therefore, shouldn't be considered when verifying a host's legitimacy. Let clients evaluate support for themselves. If the host has bad support, their clients will surely say so on the hosts thread. Not to mention, some hosts may not have live chat.

You have to remember that "Verified Hosts" is just really showing that the host is a legitimate host. All that is really required for that is proof of business registration and age of the business. If those check out, it's a legitimate business and should be considered verified. Anything more than that makes the system biased, not to mention everything else will be evaluated by customers already.

That being said, I would suggest a rating system that can be used for customers to rate the host based on their experiences, so customers shopping for hosting have a decent idea of what other customers think about each host. This way, the who's good and who's bad can still have a part.

In terms of MCM though, things should be as unbiased as possible and host verification should be entirely based on facts without regard to anyone's opinion.

 

[MCHOST_David]

In terms of length, I think 3 months is sufficient. This allows newer (but not completely new) hosts to become verified, but still requires the host to be open for some time. Any exceptions introduces a bias into the system and it should remain as unbiased as possible, so no exceptions should be made.

Newer hosts shouldn't be verified. That's the whole point of the verified hosts system - there shouldn't be many of them. It should mostly be the long standing ones since 2013-2014, with some rare exceptions from late 2014 to early 2015.[DOUBLEPOST=1445206762,1445206499][/DOUBLEPOST]

With the "fake client" thing, that also introduces a bias. You could log on to chat with an agent that just happens to be a jerk, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on the views of the company and therefore, shouldn't be considered when verifying a host's legitimacy. Let clients evaluate support for themselves. If the host has bad support, their clients will surely say so on the hosts thread. Not to mention, some hosts may not have live chat.

If the company has employed a support agent like that (a support agent is representing the company) then it's their problem. It's a fair judgement.

You have to remember that "Verified Hosts" is just really showing that the host is a legitimate host. All that is really required for that is proof of business registration and age of the business. If those check out, it's a legitimate business and should be considered verified. Anything more than that makes the system biased, not to mention everything else will be evaluated by customers already.

That's the main criteria, plus minor vetting to ensure that it's not very poor quality.

That being said, I would suggest a rating system that can be used for customers to rate the host based on their experiences, so customers shopping for hosting have a decent idea of what other customers think about each host. This way, the who's good and who's bad can still have a part.

A ratings system will just end up being friends and randomers saying "+rep im a client". They can leave replies on a thread, as they already do.

In terms of MCM though, things should be as unbiased as possible and host verification should be entirely based on facts without regard to anyone's opinion.

All the criteria I listed was based on facts, in my opinion.

bias: inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

To be honest, even judging based on the host they use isn't classed as bias.

 

[ExileAlexC]

Hello Everyone,

First off, I would just like to say these opinions that will be listed below are my own thoughts (Alex C) and do not reflect the ideas of ExileServers and you might want to get a snack to eat while you read .

I am just going to just jump into this here. tjrgg told me about this thread, so I will just voice my opinions. First, I think there should be 1 staff member fully responsible for verifying hosts and 1 person that checks the specified guidelines(I will list the ones I think there should be below.) and confirms the decision with the 1st person. These people should have to past relation to each other and HAVE to have a good knowledge about hosting companies and how they work. Preferably someone who runs or has run a hosting company before. Their account should not be a company account but rather a personal account (My personal is MCHosting). There should only be 1 Forums called Hosts that contains two sub-forums "Other" and "Verified". Now the guidelines to what can be a considered "Verified" hosting company:

1. Must have been SELLING for 3 months (Must Provide Invoice proof)
2. Must have been a member on MCM for 3 months
3. Must be a legally registered company (Must provide Documentation or Registration Number)
a. If a company argues they are legal and they are outside the US then the person appointed to the position must research the laws.
4. Must have SSL across their website, Main and Billing. (No exception) *"Lets Encrypt" doesn't count.* If a company is registered, they HAVE to pay for a decent SSL. It can be dirt cheap but not free. As long as it serves its purpose.
5. Must NOT have any nulled licenses or panels. (WHMCS will be checked indefinitely for Nulled versions.)
6. Must NOT be fraudulent or not give services as promised

Verified hosts should NOT be based on support. If a host has bad support but has all of the above, then they are verified. The only instance is if a host is advertising false claims and is not providing the promised product, then that would result in the host being removed from the Verified Host. (And a nice small email sent to the state the the company is registered in and the IRS)


Now let me get off my high horse as being part of a big host.
Last year I was able to run a host for 6 months. In that time, I was able to abide by ALL except one of the above guidelines to be verified. The only guideline I didn't meet was the registered company. To be honest, it is EXTREMLY hard to get registered only after 6 months of running. Just in my state, I HAVE to pay $800 tax per year regardless of how little or big income I made through the company. The problem is that the market is just way too crowded and if there is no way to separate the bad hosts from the good, then it will only get worse.

To reply to some of the ideas above...

• There should NEVER be a rating system to verify hosts, the verification process should be minimal and be kept "In-House" to avoid user bypassing restricts to double-vote. The rating system should only be to rate the hosts quality and performance.
• No testing livechat agents or staff. Waste of time and doesn't prove anything to verify them.
• Crappy OVH servers or Voxility-grade hardware that's costs a fortune(I rented a 16gb ram box for up to $250 per month from them, lul), the hosts can choose whatever hardware they want as long as they don't false advertise their products. In the end if their a bad host, then well...the reviews on the thread will reflect that.
• Template or custom. A host is a host.Though it gets quite annoying seeing that "FlatHost" theme around(Every host was there at some point)

Overall, it just needs to be safe for the members of MCM to use the service. Any host deemed a Security Flaw should not be Verified. Looking to see if the Host removed the Install folder for Multicraft is a great idea. There should also be a lot more testing into their network to certify that they are safe from easy unauthorized access to client data and information.



Well that's about all my opinions regarding all of this. I might have missed a few points, if so let me know and I can elaborate anything I missed or explain more. If you want to contact me personally please PM my main(MCHosting) and not this account. I am up to help out with anything that might get this integrated into MCM.

Regards,
Alex C
www.ExileServers.com

 

[Produce]

I would love to see it happen.
I feel it would be appropriate for it to be laid out like this.

You need to be EITHER a registered company. Or have been selling on mc-market for at least 3 months.

Have no open scam reports.

A REAL TOS and privacy agreement on your site

Evidence of the licenses you use and proof that they are paid for.

Anything else just seems biased to the pre existing companies.

 

[SoldierAlex]

I agree, although I do not think the non-verified section should be called "Other", that will not get anyone to click on that section making the newer hosting companies get little to no exposure. Maybe renaming it "Normal Hosts" would be a little more appealing.