Category Archives: Review Signal News

ICANN Fails the Internet Community, allows an unlimited non profit tax

I wrote The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN last week and published it because I worried ICANN would approve the proposed .ORG contract at their ICANN65 Meeting in Marrakesh which started the same day I published the article. It wasn't passed during the meeting, but last night ICANN announced it signed a new agreement on the .ORG contract.

Quick Background

ICANN, which oversees the domain name system, was in talks with Public Interest Registry (PIR), a non profit owned by The Internet Society (ISOC), about renewing PIR's contract to manage the .ORG domain name registry. The majority of non profit's use the .ORG space to represent themselves online and PIR was given this monopoly by ICANN. PIR doesn't even manage the registry themselves, but outsources (via bid) to Afilias, a registry services provider. PIR's profits all directly go to ISOC. It's a monopoly designed to tax non profits for the benefit of ISOC. ICANN's proposed contract wanted to remove the provision that allowed PIR to increase their prices 10% per year and make it unlimited or uncapped, giving PIR the freedom to charge as much as they want. Non profits, charities, internet users as a whole were nearly universally against this change.

Back to ICANN's Mission

"ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems."

-ICANN bylaws, Mission

Except, that's not what happened. Here's a timeline of what actually happened.

March 18, 2019

ICANN and PIR negotiated a contract behind closed doors and called for comments on a proposed renewal contract.

The public submitted its comments.

June 3, 2019

ICANN staff created a report summarizing the comments and said "ICANN org will consider the public comments received and, in consultation with the ICANN Board of Directors, make a decision regarding the proposed registry agreement."

June 30, 2019

ICANN approves proposed contract with no changes. Only a date was added, Cyrus Namazi got a promotion and someone spelled Jonathon's name wrong (compare).

The 96 page contract is identical from when it was proposed to signed. The multi stakeholders and bottom up process that is supposed to govern ICANN policy? Ignored.

The public outcry was nearly universally against this change. They weren't listened to at all.

Did ICANN's board vote on the proposed contract after being briefed about the public outcry? As of writing, I couldn't find any evidence in ICANN's board activity page. No agenda, no minutes, no resolutions, no briefing material, no preliminary report. Did ICANN staff simply push through this contract without a board vote? Either outcome is deeply disturbing and potentially violates the ICANN bylaws/mission.

ICANN Needs Oversight

ICANN as an organization has failed to live up to its mission. Greg Thomas wrote a response to my original article and while we may differ on some beliefs, his conclusion was,

"By all appearances, it hasn't taken long, in the absence of U.S. Government oversight, for rot to set in at the root. If the community is going to acquiesce to its own dismissal — if corruption is to become normalized at ICANN and in DNS governance — then, perhaps it's time to start looking towards the heavens."

It's hard to say ICANN doesn't appear to be a captured organization. It's abdicated its responsibility to govern, "ICANN must operate in a manner consistent with these Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole."

Yesterday, ICANN failed the internet community as a whole. It sold them out and the best reassurance is 'trust us' from the organization they just gave the freedom to tax non profits using .ORG domains as much as they desire.

The foxes are watching the hen house now and ICANN willfully ignored the internet community and made this happen.

Ethics and One Tweet’s Impact on Digital Ocean

I am speaking at HostCamp (side event to WordCamp Europe) in a couple weeks on the topic of Ethics in WordPress Hosting. I'm not really sure WordPress hosting has any specific differences from web hosting in general when talking about ethics. But ethical behavior in the web hosting space is something I talk about a lot. I also aggressively call out people/companies behaving unethically on this blog in the web hosting space. [1] [2] [3] [4]

As I was writing a response to a short interview to introduce the topic, I tried to think about a relevant example of why ethics matter in web hosting. A very recent event jumped to mind, someone tweeting that Digital Ocean [Reviews] shut down their company.

This tweet was sent by @w3Nicolas.

The stats are staggering:

That's only in the communities I participate in, I was sent the link by multiple people in other groups as well. I'm sure tens of thousands of people, if not more, read about this incident.

 

This is a view into what that tweet did to Digital Ocean's data here on Review Signal (I track Twitter data and sentiment about web hosting companies for the unfamiliar). I pulled the past 30 days of Digital Ocean information.

The tweet was sent on May 31, the 4th data point. We see an enormous jump in tweet volume. The preceding days had an average of 248 tweets per day. May 31 had 2000 and June 1 had 2489 tweets, nearly 10X the normal volume for two days. By June 4, we're down to 274 tweets, a normal volume. The internet outrage machine was out in force and spreading the word.

Digital Ocean responded on Twitter with Moisey Uretsky, a cofounder, intervening to escalate and resolve the issue. Digital Ocean also released a post-mortem on June 4 about what happened as promised (Nice to see a company keep their word and admit mistakes).

What does this have to do with Ethics?

Why did I even write this story and what does it have to do with ethics? The question I was trying to answer when I started thinking about this incident and digging into the data is "Why should hosting companies and those who do business with them care about ethics?"

A lot of developers and entrepreneurs read a story about a guy who was shutdown without warning, and then locked out seemingly permanently without being treated fairly. It strikes a chord with people when someone is being treated wrongly/badly with no explanation, especially when it's their livelihood that is impacted. It violates a fundamental moral code of fairness and trust.

The impact for a perceived ethical violation in this case was tens of thousands of people reading a negative story. It generated heated discussions and some very negative comments.

My data showed a tremendous increase in negative messages with the ratio dropping to 34% (Digital Ocean has historically over 70% positive messages).

They were quick to jump into some of the communities and address the issue. The post-mortem on Twitter received 225 Likes and 62 Retweets. That's 2.4% the amount of retweets and 4.9% the Likes. The impact of addressing the issue and trying to improve made a tiny fraction of the impact.

I will be clear here, I don't think Digital Ocean acted maliciously or unethically (intentionally). It sounds like a combination of automated system and a couple human mistakes lead to a very bad outcome for a customer that attracted a lot of attention. The way it was portrayed evoked feelings of an ethical violation of fairness and trust.

Digital Ocean's post-mortem's conclusion:

We wanted to share the specific details around this incident as accurately and quickly as possible to give the community insight into what happened and how we handled it. We recognize the impact this had on a customer, and how this represented a breach of trust for the community, and for that we are deeply sorry. We have a number of takeaways to improve the technical, process, and people missteps that led to this failure. The entire team at DigitalOcean values and remains committed to the global community of developers.

So when companies think about how they should behave, I want to use this example as an argument that people do care about companies behaving ethically and awareness of their behavior can quickly be amplified when a person's story resonates.

Black Friday and Cyber Monday Web Hosting Deals (2017)

Missing a deal? Please Contact Us

Company Offer Restrictions Coupon Start End
A2 Hosting 67% off Shared HUGE67 Nov 23 Nov 27
A2 Hosting
50% off Managed / Core VPS
CMVPS Nov 23 Nov 27
A2 Hosting 40% off Reseller RSL40 Nov 23 Nov 27
BlueHost $2.65/month Nov 24 Nov 27
CloudWays $150 Hosting Credit Credit applied at 10% monthly bill until credit expires BF150 Nov 21 Dec 11
FlyWheel 3 Months Free Annual subscription flyday17 Nov 20 Nov 28
GreenGeeks 70% off shared hosting  Nov 24  Nov 27
HostGator 80% off
InMotion Hosting $2.95/month Nov 24
Kickassd  6 months free  annual plan  50FRIDAY  Nov 21  Nov 24
Kinsta  30% off first month  Discount applied with support ticket (put in coupon code)  ReviewsignalBF2017  Nov 24  Nov 27
LiquidWeb
Dedicated Servers 50% off for 3 months
BF17PROMO Nov 30
LiquidWeb
VPS 50% off for 3 months
BF17PROMO Nov 30
MediaTemple
40% off Annual Plans
Nov 24 Nov 28
Nestify $49/year for Shared Personal Plan (Normally $19.99/month)  New customers  REVIEWSIGNAL2017 Nov 23 Nov 30
Nestify $199/year for VPS-Lite Plan (Normally $79/month)  New customers  REVIEWSIGNAL2017 Nov 23 Nov 30
Nexcess
80% off First Month
New Customers Only  BF17 Nov 24 Nov 27
SiteGround 70% off Shared Nov 24 Nov 27
WPEngine
35% off first payment
cyberwpe35 Nov 22 Nov 30
WPX Hosting Double Sites, Bandwidth, Disk Space
Two Year Purchase
Nov 22 Nov 29
WPX Hosting Three months free
Annual Subscription
Nov 22 Nov 29
WPX Hosting $1 First Month
$1 for the first month
Nov 22 Nov 29

Review Signal Celebrates 5 Years of Providing Honest Web Hosting Reviews

Review Signal launched on September 25, 2012. TechCrunch wrote Web Hosting Reviews are a Cesspool. Review Signal Wants to Fix That. It was a huge moment because it was roughly two years of development and one Master's thesis worth of effort. The author wrote a pretty accurate assessment of the state of web hosting reviews and the challenges facing Review Signal. Well, Review Signal has managed to last. It added Amazon AWS along with a bunch of other hosting companies. It has kept its independence and only made one algorithm update. The goal of expansion beyond hosting hasn't happened. But Review Signal has managed to become the defacto number one source for WordPress Hosting Reviews for anyone who cares about performance with our annual WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks.

Looking at the past five years, I've wondered what sort of impact Review Signal has made. One of the saddest impacts has been doing post-mortem write ups about once great companies. The original was The Rise and Fall of A Small Orange. It was a very personal analysis because they were a company that was ranked #1 on Review Signal when it launched. I had to personally talk the CEO into creating an affiliate program specifically for Review Signal because he was against web hosting review sites. He was against them for the same reason I was, because they were just pay-to-play junk masquerading as 'reviews.' I had to convince him Review Signal was different and if something different and honest were going to survive financially, I had to at least make a little money from referrals or I couldn't afford to continue to operate. Ultimately, based on the numbers I saw, it's possible Review Signal could have generated more than 10% of their business which saw them grow until they were acquired by Endurance International Group (EIG) and fall off a cliff in terms of service. Sadly, it wasn't the only company to follow this story, The Sinking of Site5 was the follow up.

The effort for honest reviews spawned one site which copied the same idea of using Twitter data to power it. They didn't do affiliate links and ultimately sold out to a less than savory web hosting review site which taunts some EIG brands near the top of its rankings. That was another unfortunate post mortem I had to write.

At least posting about some of the dirty, slimy, shady secrets of the web hosting review world stopped or stemmed some of the bad behavior - right?

 

I guess not. It's still just another Tuesday when someone insults what it should mean to run a review site.

But to end on a positive note, I'm quite proud Review Signal has managed to stick around. I've disclosed a lot about it this year on a big interview on Indie Hackers. It may not have changed the world but it has definitely helped thousands of people make more informed and hopefully better decisions in a market plagued with lies. So for, I am proud and here's to the next five years - I hope Review Signal helps more people and makes a bigger impact on the industry as a whole.

Uncovering the Rose Hosting Spam Network on Quora

Welcome back to Dirty, Slimy, Shady Secrets of the Web Hosting Review (Under) World - Episode 3! Read Episode 1 | Episode 2

Today's post features Rose Hosting. Who I refuse to link to because their whole business model seems to involve comment spamming this blog and other sources of information. What started with a simple spam comment sent me down a rabbit hole I wasn't prepared for and shed light on a fairly large spam operation that spanned multiple sites, but my primary focus became Quora with a secondary focus on the web hosting review sites also being manipulated.

Visualization of Rose Hosting Quora Spam Network. An interactive version is available at the end of the article.

The Beginning

It started with a simple spam comment.

fakereview1

The poster tries to compliment the post and then drops in a RoseHosting mention and praises it.

But wait, there's an IP address! Looks like they made a mistake this time.

oscarstanley-arin-ip

So Miami Cloud Hosting is who owns the IP space that this comment came from. Let's see what comes up when I ping rosehosting.com

rosehosting-ip-ping

If you go to that IP, rosehosting.com shows up. So it's correct. Also if you look at their DNS:

rosehosting-dns

So we're 12 IPs away on that A record. Let's check out that IP that actually responded on ARIN.

rosehosting-arin-ip

Bingo. Same Miami Cloud Hosting.

So fakeish looking name, an email with zero google search results and coming from the same IP space on a the cloud hosting provider that hosts RoseHosting. Pretty damning, but unsurprising to see some astroturfing, many of the bigger players just rely on affiliates to do it for them and look the other way.

But I'm not one to accept shitty behavior in this business and just look the other way.

Digging Deeper

Let's see how many more I can dig up. I recognize the Rose Hosting name and know they've spammed me in the past.

jean-debushy-comment mike-hidemyass-comment pablo-comment

mateo-comment

 

The pattern seems to be emails with nothing associated with them on google. There is a protected twitter account with the same username as Pablo, but that's about it.

Mike uses HideMyAss, a VPN service designed to hide identities. VPNs/anonymity have a lot of value, they also happen to be abused by spammers a lot. This pattern looks nefarious.

Jean's comment follows the original Oscar comment's template: compliment, rose host spam, compliment.

They all added in HTML with the rel="nofollow" because they probably realized Google can easily see comment spam and cracked down on it. Putting a nofollow link is supposed to preserve your SEO value by not associating it as a spam link (because it's telling Google not to follow it). Why are these supposed customers adding SEO tactics to their comments and trying to hide their identities?

The Boss Man

I also got this email from Bob, who I assume is the owner based on what's listed publicly and the interviews he's done on at least one other review site which I don't trust a bit, and won't link to either.

But it's all class, I want to get listed and pay a lot.

generous-affiliate-program-rosehosting

So at best they are a 'subtle' please promote me for money kind of web hosting company (which almost every host will do). At worst, they are comment spamming and potentially astroturfing/sockpuppeting web host.

Searching For More

I searched WebHostingTalk, the largest web hosting forum that has run forever and has over 9 million posts.

rosehosting-wht

Just about everyone is talked about here. They have a company account that constantly posts ads. But how is it that in 14 years there are only 2 reviews and most of the threads are asking 'who?' Yet somehow, my blog is getting hordes of accounts recommending them. Another red flag.

Did they learn their lesson on WHT when an account got questioned about sounding like a shill? So the largest forum with 9,000,000 posts has basically nothing about them.

I kept searching and stumbled upon this gem on Twitter

twitter-brandonhimpfen-rosehosting-comment-spam

twitter-brandonhimpfen-rosehosting-discussion

I sense a pattern. Those crazy customers of ours who link to git and tomcat installation tutorials. Carl had a bit of a spamming spree according to Google.

Let's keep digging.

Sockpuppets and Patterns

jeandebushy-reddit-comments

Looks like I found Jean Debushy!

jean-debushy-serchen-review

And again.

jean-debushy-itzgeek-comment-spam

And again. Deep linking their ubuntu VPS on an ubuntu tutorial too, nice SEO tactic.

jean-debushy-quora

It's not a good spam campaign without hitting Quora!

So this name exists solely to promote RoseHosting and it all seemed to happen in October 2015. That's suspicious to say the least.

At this point it became clear that the sockpuppeting is more organized than I originally thought.

Organized Sockpuppets

I started to search the other names I had been spammed from and easily found more bad behavior.

oscar-stanley-disqus

oscar-stanley-discovercloud

Oscar is alive and well it seems on Disqus. and DiscoverCloud.

The Smoking Gun

Quora was the gold mine for uncovering this spam network. Once I found a couple accounts on Quora, I could go through their history and see who upvoted their posts. It would be practical if you were running a spam network to have many accounts upvoting one another to give yourself more visibility. More upvotes, more traffic, easier for me to track it all down.

I discovered 51 accounts connected to RoseHosting and mapped out how they connected to one another. I took those same names and searched for their re-use across other sites. 10 showed up on Serchen, 3 on HostReview, 6 on DiscoverCloud, 6 on HostAdvice, 3 on TrustPilot, 1 on Reviews.co.uk - all industry review sites being manipulated by these same spam accounts. I also discovered 11 more accounts connected to various review sites and comment spam.

Rose Hosting Quora Spam Network

This graph charts the connections (upvotes) of RoseHosting associated Quora accounts. If you hover over a name it links to the Quora details and any other related content spamming like review sites.

Aftermath

I tried for months to reach out to Quora and have never heard a word from them. I did notice when I last checked (March 28, 2017) that at least some of the accounts have been banned. Maybe someone actually read my email and just didn't have the time to respond.

I have reached out to the web hosting review sites and will update as I hear back from them. The only company that did respond and acknowledged the issue was HostAdvice (not to be confused with HostingAdvice which steals Review Signal content to mislead its visitors).

Sources

Full Data Table Available on Google Docs

 

Bonus

Thanks RoseHosting for having the decency to make sure you spammed this article as well. I am guessing your spammers don't understand irony. Or possibly the English language.

A new comment on the post "Uncovering the Rose Hosting Spam Network on Quora" is waiting for your approval
https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2017/03/31/uncovering-the-rose-hosting-spam-network-on-quora/

Author: Merritt George (IP: 75.86.176.9, cpe-75-86-176-9.wi.res.rr.com)
Email: merritt.george@gmail.com
URL:
Comment:
That's a great article! There sure are interesting parts of web hosting that people don't know about.

So hey I wanted to know if you do reviews on new sites? I was looking around and noticed that my current webhost, <a href="https://www.rosehosting.com/" rel="nofollow">Rose Hosting</a> wasn't listed and that's a shame! In a sea of companies with no scruples, they've stood out to me as a solid company that doesn't resort to shady tactics, delivers quality support, and has great uptime.

Would love to see a benchmark!

 

Bonus: Fake Review Screenshots

carl-williams-serchen-review

 

donald-wilson-discovercloud

 

akila-hostadvice

wesley-hermans-host-advice

emre-hakan-review-discovercloud

pete-williams-serchen

gary-coleman-hostreview

jean-debushy-hostreview

 

dirk-vlaar-serchen

 

goodbye hostingreviews

Goodbye HostingReviews.io, I Will Miss You

It's strange writing a positive article about a competitor. This industry is so full of shit, that it feels weird to be writing this. But if we don't recognize the good as well as the bad, what's the point?

In order to bring you more accurate web hosting reviews, HostingReviews.io is now merged with HostingFacts.com and soon to be redirected to HostingFacts.com
-HostingReviews.io popup notice

HostingReviews.io was a project created by Steven Gliebe. It was basically a manually done version of Review Signal. He went through by hand categorizing tweets and displaying data about hosting company. Besides the automated vs manual approach, the only other big difference was he didn't use affiliate links. It was bought out by HostingFacts.com last year sometime and left alone.

I'm truly saddened because it's disappearing at some point 'soon.' The only real competitor whose data I trusted to compare myself against. So I thought I would take the opportunity to write about my favorite competitor.

I am consciously not linking to either in this article because HostingFacts.com, who purchased HostingReviews.io, has HostGator listed as their #1 host in 2017 who are rated terribly by both Review Signal (42%) and HostingReviews.io (9%). So whatever their methodology purports to be, it's so drastically out of line with the data Steven and I have meticulously collected for years that I don't trust it one bit. Not to mention their misleading and bizarre rankings showing BlueHost #4 and in the footer recommending A Small Orange as the #4 rated company. In their actual review, they recommend A Small Orange, I guess they missed The Rise and Fall of A Small Orange and the fact that HostingReviews.io (March 2017) has ASO at 27%.

It would be easy to be upset that someone copied the same idea, but the reality is, it's quite helpful. Steven is a completely different person, with different interests, values and techniques. He also didn't put any affiliate links which many people believe are inherently corrupt. But our results for the most part, were very much the same. So the whole idea that affiliate links corrupts Review Signal rankings, I could pretty confidently throw out the door.

I just want to clarify that I had actually built most of the site before seeing Review Signal. I probably wouldn't have started if I knew about yours first. We came up with the same idea independently. They are similar but nothing was copied. I was a bit disappointed to find out that I wasn't first but later happy, after chatting with you and seeing that we were kind of the Two Musketeers of web hosting reviews.

- Steven Gliebe

I decided to actually look at how close we really were using old archive.org data from Jan 2015 when his site was still being actively updated a lot.

Comparing HostingReviews.io vs Review Signal Ratings (Jan 2015). I've only included companies that both sites covered for comparison's sake.

Company HR Rating Review Signal Rating Rating Difference HR Rank RS Rank Rank Difference
Flywheel 97 93 -4 1 1 0
Pagely 81 56 -25 2 18 -16
SiteGround 79 74 -5 3 4 -1
WiredTree 75 67 -8 4 12 -8
A Small Orange 74 77 3 5 2 3
Linode 72 74 2 6 5 1
WP Engine 72 74 2 7 6 1
LiquidWeb 70 70 0 8 8 0
DigitalOcean 66 75 9 9 3 6
MidPhase 61 59 -2 10 16 -6
HostDime 60 60 0 11 14 -3
Servint 59 60 1 12 15 -3
Amazon Web Services 55 67 12 13 13 0
SoftLayer 50 70 20 14 9 5
DreamHost 49 55 6 15 19 -4
Synthesis 47 74 27 16 7 9
Microsoft Azure 43 70 27 17 10 7
InMotion Hosting 43 52 9 18 20 -2
WestHost 43 51 8 19 21 -2
Rackspace 40 69 29 20 11 9
Media Temple 35 58 23 21 17 4
GoDaddy 30 45 15 22 25 -3
HostMonster 25 42 17 23 29 -6
Bluehost 22 46 24 24 24 0
Just Host 22 39 17 25 30 -5
Netfirms 21 44 23 26 26 0
Hostway 18 44 26 27 27 0
iPage 16 44 28 28 28 0
HostGator 13 49 36 29 22 7
Lunarpages 11 49 38 30 23 7
Mochahost 10 20 10 31 34 -3
1&1 6 36 30 32 32 0
Verio 5 35 30 33 33 0
IX Web Hosting 0 38 38 34 31 3

The biggest difference is Pagely. I'm not sure why we're so different, but it could be a few factors: small sample size (HR had 42 reviews vs RS having 291), time frame (Review Signal has been collecting data on companies as early as 2011) or perhaps categorization methodology.

To calculate the actual ratings, we both used the same simple formula of % positive reviews (Review Signal has since changed it's methodology to decrease the value of older views). There is a lot greater difference there than between ranking order. This could also be a sampling or categorization issue, but the rankings actually were a lot closer than rating numbers especially at the bottom. The biggest differences were about Pagely, WiredTree, WebSynthesis, Azure, RackSpace, HostGator, and LunarPages. Review Signal had most of those companies higher than HostingReviews with the exceptions of Pagely and WiredTree. WiredTree the actual % difference isn't that high, it looks more distorted because of how many companies were ranked in that neighborhood. Pagely still remains the only concerning discrepancy, some of which could be corrected by using a different rating algorithm to compensate for small sample sizes (Wilson Confidence Interval). If you use a Wilson Confidence Interval with 95% confidence, Pagely would have 67% which makes the difference only 11%. Something still is off, but I'm not sure what. Towards the bottom, HostingReviews had companies with a lot lower ratings in general. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm not sure that it concerns me that greatly if a company is at 20 or 40%, that's pretty terrible through any lens.

The Wilson Confidence Interval is something I'm a big fan of, but the trouble is explaining it. It's not exactly intuitive and most users won't understand. To get around that problem here at Review Signal, I don't list companies with small sample sizes. I think it's unfair to small companies because those companies will always have lower scores using a Wilson Confidence Interval.

I always thought if you were going to list low data companies, you would have to use it for the ratings to be meaningful. So I went ahead and applied it to HostingReviews since they list low data companies.

Company HR Rating HR Wilson Score RS Rating Wilson HR Rank RS Rank Rank Difference
Flywheel 97 0.903664487437776 93 1 1 0
SiteGround 79 0.725707872732548 74 2 4 -2
Linode 72 0.667820465467272 74 3 5 -2
Pagely 81 0.667522785017387 56 4 18 -14
A Small Orange 74 0.665222315806623 77 5 2 3
WP Engine 72 0.664495409977001 74 6 6 0
DigitalOcean 66 0.632643582791056 75 7 3 4
WiredTree 75 0.62426879138105 67 8 12 -4
LiquidWeb 70 0.591607758450507 70 9 8 1
Amazon Web Services 55 0.50771491300961 67 10 13 -3
DreamHost 49 0.440663157139283 55 11 19 -8
Servint 59 0.410929374988646 60 12 14 -2
SoftLayer 50 0.387468960047243 70 13 9 4
MidPhase 61 0.3851843256587 59 14 16 -2
Microsoft Azure 43 0.379726217475451 70 15 10 5
HostDime 60 0.357464427565077 60 16 15 1
Rackspace 40 0.356282970938665 69 17 11 6
Synthesis 47 0.317886056933924 74 18 7 11
Media Temple 35 0.305726756042135 58 19 17 2
GoDaddy 30 0.277380620794128 45 20 25 -5
InMotion Hosting 43 0.252456868216651 52 21 20 1
WestHost 43 0.214851925523797 51 22 21 1
Bluehost 22 0.193489653693868 46 23 24 -1
Just Host 22 0.130232286167726 39 24 30 -6
HostGator 13 0.110124578122674 49 25 22 3
iPage 16 0.106548464670946 44 26 26 0
Netfirms 21 0.1063667334132 44 27 27 0
Hostway 18 0.085839112937093 44 28 28 0
Lunarpages 11 0.056357713906061 49 29 23 6
HostMonster 25 0.045586062644636 42 30 29 1
1&1 6 0.042907593743725 36 31 32 -1
Mochahost 10 0.017875749515721 20 32 34 -2
Verio 5 0.008564782830854 35 33 33 0
IX Web Hosting 0 0 38 34 31 3

This actually made the ranked order between companies even closer between Review Signal and HostingReviews. Pagely and WebSynthesis are still the two major outliers which suggests we have a more fundamental problem between the two sites and how we've measured those companies. But overall, the ranks got closer together, the original being off by a total of 124 (sum of how far off each rank was from one another) and Wilson rank being 104 which is 16% closer together. A win for the Wilson Confidence Interval and sample sizing issues!

Bonus: HostingReviews with Wilson Confidence Interval vs Original Rating/Ranking

Company Rating Reviews Wilson Score Rating Difference Rank Wilson Rank Difference
Flywheel 97 76 0.903664487437776 7 2 1 1
Kinsta 100 13 0.771898156944708 23 1 2 -1
SiteGround 79 185 0.725707872732548 6 5 3 2
Pantheon 84 49 0.713390268477418 13 3 4 -1
Linode 72 313 0.667820465467272 5 9 5 4
Pagely 81 42 0.667522785017387 14 4 6 -2
A Small Orange 74 153 0.665222315806623 7 7 7 0
WP Engine 72 278 0.664495409977001 6 10 8 2
DigitalOcean 66 1193 0.632643582791056 3 13 9 4
WiredTree 75 57 0.62426879138105 13 6 10 -4
Google Cloud Platform 70 101 0.604645970406924 10 11 11 0
LiquidWeb 70 79 0.591607758450507 11 12 12 0
Vultr 73 33 0.560664188794383 17 8 13 -5
Amazon Web Services 55 537 0.50771491300961 4 18 14 4
DreamHost 49 389 0.440663157139283 5 21 15 6
GreenGeeks 59 39 0.434429655157957 16 16 16 0
Servint 59 29 0.410929374988646 18 17 17 0
SoftLayer 50 72 0.387468960047243 11 19 18 1
Site5 49 83 0.385299666256405 10 22 19 3
MidPhase 61 18 0.3851843256587 22 14 20 -6
Microsoft Azure 43 358 0.379726217475451 5 24 21 3
HostDime 60 15 0.357464427565077 24 15 22 -7
Rackspace 40 461 0.356282970938665 4 28 23 5
Synthesis 47 36 0.317886056933924 15 23 24 -1
Media Temple 35 416 0.305726756042135 4 30 25 5
Arvixe 41 59 0.293772727671168 12 27 26 1
GoDaddy 30 1505 0.277380620794128 2 32 27 5
InMotion Hosting 43 23 0.252456868216651 18 25 28 -3
Web Hosting Hub 38 34 0.237049871468482 14 29 29 0
WebHostingBuzz 50 8 0.215212526824442 28 20 30 -10
WestHost 43 14 0.214851925523797 22 26 31 -5
Bluehost 22 853 0.193489653693868 3 34 32 2
Just Host 22 54 0.130232286167726 9 35 33 2
HostGator 13 953 0.110124578122674 2 41 34 7
iPage 16 128 0.106548464670946 5 39 35 4
Netfirms 21 34 0.1063667334132 10 36 36 0
Pressable 19 43 0.100236618545274 9 37 37 0
Hostway 18 34 0.085839112937093 9 38 38 0
Fasthosts 12 179 0.080208937918757 4 42 39 3
HostPapa 14 72 0.078040723708843 6 40 40 0
Globat 33 3 0.060406929099298 27 31 41 -10
Lunarpages 11 71 0.056357713906061 5 43 42 1
HostMonster 25 4 0.045586062644636 20 33 43 -10
1&1 6 540 0.042907593743725 2 46 44 2
Mochahost 10 10 0.017875749515721 8 44 45 -1
JaguarPC 10 10 0.017875749515721 8 45 46 -1
Verio 5 19 0.008564782830854 4 47 47 0
IPOWER 5 19 0.008564782830854 4 48 48 0
IX Web Hosting 0 45 0 0 49 49 0
PowWeb 0 10 0 0 50 50 0
MyHosting 0 9 0 0 51 51 0
WebHostingPad 0 5 0 0 52 52 0
HostRocket 0 2 0 0 53 53 0
Superb Internet 0 1 0 0 54 54 0

You will notice the biggest differences are companies with more reviews generally moving up in rank, small sample sizes move down. Because the sample sizes are so small on some companies, you can see their % rating drops dramatically. But since most companies don't have a lot of data, it doesn't influence the rankings as much.

Conclusion

It's been nice having HostingReviews.io around when it was actively being updated (the manual process is certainly overwhelming for any individual I think!). I will miss having a real competitor to compare what I'm seeing in my data. I don't know the new owners, but I do consider Steven, the creator, a friend and wish him the best of luck going forward while he works on his primary business, ChurchThemes.com. It saddens me to see the new owners ruining his work with what looks like another mediocre affiliate review site pushing some of the highest paying companies in the space. But it's yet another unfortunate reminder of why I'm so disappointed by the web hosting review industry.

Sources: All data was pulled from Archive.org.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113073121/http://hostingreviews.io/

http://web.archive.org/web/20150130063013/https://reviewsignal.com/webhosting/compare/

Loading...

Interested in seeing which web hosting companies people love (and hate!)? Click here and find out how your web host stacks up.