Causes of failure to hosters when added to directories
Not all hosters that send requests for adding get into my VPS and VPS.today catalogs , and some of them disappear over time. This happens because we very much value our reputation and try to display information about the services provided as accurately and fully as possible, and also to protect users from possible pitfalls in cooperation with the hoster. Today I want to talk about the rules and describe in detail why we use each of them.
Most often, this condition is satisfied for all hosters who want to get into the directory, although sometimes there are unfinished sites or billing. Of the most frequent flaws that we see - it is not fully translated parts of the site, when the hoster used some kind of template to create it. There may also be broken links or blank pages. Of course, if there are one or two such errors, then we write to the host and close our eyes to it, but if there are more such errors, then we will most likely ask the host to complete the site and submit the application again. We need a working billing for checking the availability and prices of tariffs so that the prices in billing coincide with the prices on the site, as sometimes there are situations when a tariff is presented on the site, but when switching to billing you cannot buy it or have a different price from it.
A very important rule is the coincidence of the prices indicated on the site with the prices indicated in the billing. We follow this especially closely, as I believe that the situation when the user sees the price of 100 rubles on the site, and when you click the “Buy” button in the billing, the price of 150 rubles is already displayed, should be completely excluded. Most often, such errors are not intentional, and after our remark, the hoster quickly corrects his mistake (for example, after updating the billing prices, people often forget to change them on the site), however there were several cases where the hoster intentionally indicated the wrong price, thus misleading users and our editors.
This item appeared not from the very beginning of the project, but rather recently. Its meaning is that the hoster must provide an answer for the user's request within 24 hours from the moment of its creation. The answer is not necessarily the solution to the problem, but at least just a notification that the hoster is alive and has accepted the user's request for consideration. The reason for the emergence of such a rule on our part is quite simple: if the hoster cannot answer the user's question within 24 hours, then it is unclear what will happen in case of any problems and how many users will need to wait for an answer in this case. Sometimes we ask some simple question to the host ourselves (for example, does it accept payment via Yandex.Money), and if we do not receive any response to such a question or the answer comes in a few days,
Large hosters provide a reselling program: anyone can resell services with their mark-up or with some additional buns (for example, free technical support or other payment methods). Sometimes there are cases when someone wants to sell servers of other hosters without any advantages for clients, that is, it is more profitable for the end user to take a virtual server from a large hoster and not get a “point of failure” in the form of an intermediary. Also, this item appeared due to the fact that very often with intermediaries, the tariff parameters coincide with the tariff parameters of a large hosting provider, which “litters” the search results very much.
Now there are almost no such hosters (thanks to the creators of the browsers), but very rarely billing without SSL can still be found. Since important data is stored in the billing, we do not add or disable hosters that do not use a secure connection (we also temporarily disable those hosters whose certificate has expired).
There are not very many hosts that fall under this rule, but some force the user to register first in billing, and only after that ask a question.
This item was from the very beginning of the project: with fixed tariffs, everything is quite simple, you just need to add them to the admin panel and that's it. But with designers it is not clear what to do: it is unclear how much to add tariffs in total, with what step to add tariffs, etc. Also, when checking such tariffs, there will also be difficulties, since there is no clear instructions for adding, and there is no written algorithm for all hosts possible.
However, on VPS.todaythere was one very useful innovation: we began to indicate the cost of additional resources for fixed tariffs. This option in the future will allow us to abandon the rule of adding only fixed tariffs: we plan to add the minimum tariff from the constructor and indicate the cost of additional resources, thus the problem with the uncertainty about which tariffs from the constructor will be completely lost.
A very frequent feature of foreign hosters is an indication only of the price when paying for a long period (for example, a year or two). The user sees a good price, clicks to buy and only then he finds out that this price is valid only if you pay immediately for a long period. In my opinion, this is not entirely honest behavior towards the user, and we do not show tariffs that do not show how much it costs 1 month without switching to another page or other complex actions.
Sometimes it happens that hosters offer some kind of cheap tariff, but on the condition of a long prepayment, for example, a year. Since the default sorting in the catalogs is by price, when adding such tariffs, the first few pages would be filled with offers that cannot be bought for one month for testing and verification.
This rule was also from the very beginning of the project’s existence, and such tariffs are rare, but they do occur. Sometimes it happens that hosters sell virtual servers with full administration: the user pays for the server and for the work of administrators, while not worrying about setting up and updating the server. In this case, so that the user does not break anything, the hoster does not give the user full access to the server. It turns out a kind of shared hosting without server neighbors. So that users of the catalog did not confuse such tariffs with “ordinary” virtual servers, we decided not to add them, especially since there are very few such tariffs.
There are quite a few cases under this item, but the most common ones are: the presence of only an IPv6 address, the presence of an installation payment, a server under the bitrix (with preliminary settings), etc. That is, a very small percentage of tariffs that are very different fall under this rule from the rest.
Some hosters are positioning their servers as bulletproof, which attract spammers and other not very good personalities. With such hosters, we are not on the way.
Since we mainly monitor the update of tariffs manually, when very often some tariffs disappear from the sale of the hosting provider, we are forced to turn them off completely. We cannot check the availability of a tariff on sale every day, so let it be better we don’t have some kind of tariff that is on sale at the hosting provider, than we show a tariff that is not for sale.
Several times we were forced to refuse hosters, who had a lot of (more than 100) tariffs. All rates are added and updated manually, and such a large amount is very difficult to handle without making mistakes. Therefore, unfortunately, even though such hosters do not have anything criminal, we had to refuse them.
Sometimes it happens that the hoster offers to make a turnkey hosting business using its power. From a technical point of view, it turns out that a “subproject” is created in the host’s main billing, and the partner uses this billing to sell its services. In this case, we also refuse to add tariffs, as it is difficult to talk about security or privacy.
Some hosters do not want to bother with the creation of the site and use billing instead. For users and editors, this brings some inconvenience: the billing capabilities are not limitless, and the information about the tariffs in it is visually much worse than if it were framed on the site. We also try not to add hosters if they have created a very simple one-page site on which there is almost no information.
It’s no secret that, in addition to advertising, catalogs are also earned from affiliate programs that many hosters have. However, we do not make any differences depending on the presence or absence of an affiliate program. Also, we do not impose any restrictions if the hoster enters some rules regarding directories or my sites personally (there were a couple of cases when hosters said that they had affiliate programs for directories or less percentage than for regular users). To be brief, hosters with an affiliate program do not get any advantages over hosters without one. The only rule is that if there is an affiliate program, the hoster must fulfill its obligations and withdraw the money it earned. It rarely happens, but for some reason the hoster is trying in every way not to make a conclusion. I try to sort out all such cases as correctly as possible and create tickets or write to the post office with a question about withdrawal (a banal error can occur, the hoster can forget to draw a conclusion or something like that). In even rarer cases, I do not receive any responses from the hosters to my requests, and we disable the card of such a hoster. Previously, the disconnection was temporary until the payment was received, but recently we decided that hosters that do not make a conclusion are temporarily disconnected even after receiving the full amount earned: after the first time, the hoster disappears for 1 month, and if it happened a second time, then disconnect will be permanent. The reasons for this rule lie not only in the desire to receive money (although I will not hide the fact that it always exists), but also in the fact
I will be glad to hear comments on these rules. Maybe some of them are superfluous, or is it worth filtering other hosts by some parameters? I am pleased to consider your opinions and constructive criticism on this matter.
The hoster must have a working site and billing
Most often, this condition is satisfied for all hosters who want to get into the directory, although sometimes there are unfinished sites or billing. Of the most frequent flaws that we see - it is not fully translated parts of the site, when the hoster used some kind of template to create it. There may also be broken links or blank pages. Of course, if there are one or two such errors, then we write to the host and close our eyes to it, but if there are more such errors, then we will most likely ask the host to complete the site and submit the application again. We need a working billing for checking the availability and prices of tariffs so that the prices in billing coincide with the prices on the site, as sometimes there are situations when a tariff is presented on the site, but when switching to billing you cannot buy it or have a different price from it.
The coincidence of prices on the site and in the billing
A very important rule is the coincidence of the prices indicated on the site with the prices indicated in the billing. We follow this especially closely, as I believe that the situation when the user sees the price of 100 rubles on the site, and when you click the “Buy” button in the billing, the price of 150 rubles is already displayed, should be completely excluded. Most often, such errors are not intentional, and after our remark, the hoster quickly corrects his mistake (for example, after updating the billing prices, people often forget to change them on the site), however there were several cases where the hoster intentionally indicated the wrong price, thus misleading users and our editors.
Responses to tickets within 24 hours on weekdays
This item appeared not from the very beginning of the project, but rather recently. Its meaning is that the hoster must provide an answer for the user's request within 24 hours from the moment of its creation. The answer is not necessarily the solution to the problem, but at least just a notification that the hoster is alive and has accepted the user's request for consideration. The reason for the emergence of such a rule on our part is quite simple: if the hoster cannot answer the user's question within 24 hours, then it is unclear what will happen in case of any problems and how many users will need to wait for an answer in this case. Sometimes we ask some simple question to the host ourselves (for example, does it accept payment via Yandex.Money), and if we do not receive any response to such a question or the answer comes in a few days,
Resale services of another hosting provider without providing any benefits
Large hosters provide a reselling program: anyone can resell services with their mark-up or with some additional buns (for example, free technical support or other payment methods). Sometimes there are cases when someone wants to sell servers of other hosters without any advantages for clients, that is, it is more profitable for the end user to take a virtual server from a large hoster and not get a “point of failure” in the form of an intermediary. Also, this item appeared due to the fact that very often with intermediaries, the tariff parameters coincide with the tariff parameters of a large hosting provider, which “litters” the search results very much.
Hosting billing must use a secure HTTPS connection.
Now there are almost no such hosters (thanks to the creators of the browsers), but very rarely billing without SSL can still be found. Since important data is stored in the billing, we do not add or disable hosters that do not use a secure connection (we also temporarily disable those hosters whose certificate has expired).
The hoster's website should have a feedback form or an e-mail to communicate on pre-sales issues.
There are not very many hosts that fall under this rule, but some force the user to register first in billing, and only after that ask a question.
The hoster must have fixed rates, not a constructor
This item was from the very beginning of the project: with fixed tariffs, everything is quite simple, you just need to add them to the admin panel and that's it. But with designers it is not clear what to do: it is unclear how much to add tariffs in total, with what step to add tariffs, etc. Also, when checking such tariffs, there will also be difficulties, since there is no clear instructions for adding, and there is no written algorithm for all hosts possible.
However, on VPS.todaythere was one very useful innovation: we began to indicate the cost of additional resources for fixed tariffs. This option in the future will allow us to abandon the rule of adding only fixed tariffs: we plan to add the minimum tariff from the constructor and indicate the cost of additional resources, thus the problem with the uncertainty about which tariffs from the constructor will be completely lost.
Monthly price must be clearly indicated.
A very frequent feature of foreign hosters is an indication only of the price when paying for a long period (for example, a year or two). The user sees a good price, clicks to buy and only then he finds out that this price is valid only if you pay immediately for a long period. In my opinion, this is not entirely honest behavior towards the user, and we do not show tariffs that do not show how much it costs 1 month without switching to another page or other complex actions.
No restrictions on the minimum payment period
Sometimes it happens that hosters offer some kind of cheap tariff, but on the condition of a long prepayment, for example, a year. Since the default sorting in the catalogs is by price, when adding such tariffs, the first few pages would be filled with offers that cannot be bought for one month for testing and verification.
The hoster must provide root or Administrator access to the server.
This rule was also from the very beginning of the project’s existence, and such tariffs are rare, but they do occur. Sometimes it happens that hosters sell virtual servers with full administration: the user pays for the server and for the work of administrators, while not worrying about setting up and updating the server. In this case, so that the user does not break anything, the hoster does not give the user full access to the server. It turns out a kind of shared hosting without server neighbors. So that users of the catalog did not confuse such tariffs with “ordinary” virtual servers, we decided not to add them, especially since there are very few such tariffs.
We do not add specialized rates or with any unusual conditions.
There are quite a few cases under this item, but the most common ones are: the presence of only an IPv6 address, the presence of an installation payment, a server under the bitrix (with preliminary settings), etc. That is, a very small percentage of tariffs that are very different fall under this rule from the rest.
The provision of bulletproof servers
Some hosters are positioning their servers as bulletproof, which attract spammers and other not very good personalities. With such hosters, we are not on the way.
Part of the tariffs are constantly unavailable for sale.
Since we mainly monitor the update of tariffs manually, when very often some tariffs disappear from the sale of the hosting provider, we are forced to turn them off completely. We cannot check the availability of a tariff on sale every day, so let it be better we don’t have some kind of tariff that is on sale at the hosting provider, than we show a tariff that is not for sale.
A very large number of tariffs
Several times we were forced to refuse hosters, who had a lot of (more than 100) tariffs. All rates are added and updated manually, and such a large amount is very difficult to handle without making mistakes. Therefore, unfortunately, even though such hosters do not have anything criminal, we had to refuse them.
Using another hosting billing
Sometimes it happens that the hoster offers to make a turnkey hosting business using its power. From a technical point of view, it turns out that a “subproject” is created in the host’s main billing, and the partner uses this billing to sell its services. In this case, we also refuse to add tariffs, as it is difficult to talk about security or privacy.
Using billing as a site
Some hosters do not want to bother with the creation of the site and use billing instead. For users and editors, this brings some inconvenience: the billing capabilities are not limitless, and the information about the tariffs in it is visually much worse than if it were framed on the site. We also try not to add hosters if they have created a very simple one-page site on which there is almost no information.
Невыполнение обязательств по партнерской программе
It’s no secret that, in addition to advertising, catalogs are also earned from affiliate programs that many hosters have. However, we do not make any differences depending on the presence or absence of an affiliate program. Also, we do not impose any restrictions if the hoster enters some rules regarding directories or my sites personally (there were a couple of cases when hosters said that they had affiliate programs for directories or less percentage than for regular users). To be brief, hosters with an affiliate program do not get any advantages over hosters without one. The only rule is that if there is an affiliate program, the hoster must fulfill its obligations and withdraw the money it earned. It rarely happens, but for some reason the hoster is trying in every way not to make a conclusion. I try to sort out all such cases as correctly as possible and create tickets or write to the post office with a question about withdrawal (a banal error can occur, the hoster can forget to draw a conclusion or something like that). In even rarer cases, I do not receive any responses from the hosters to my requests, and we disable the card of such a hoster. Previously, the disconnection was temporary until the payment was received, but recently we decided that hosters that do not make a conclusion are temporarily disconnected even after receiving the full amount earned: after the first time, the hoster disappears for 1 month, and if it happened a second time, then disconnect will be permanent. The reasons for this rule lie not only in the desire to receive money (although I will not hide the fact that it always exists), but also in the fact
I will be glad to hear comments on these rules. Maybe some of them are superfluous, or is it worth filtering other hosts by some parameters? I am pleased to consider your opinions and constructive criticism on this matter.
Go to VPS.today - a site for searching virtual servers. 1400 tariffs from 120 hosters, convenient interface and a large number of criteria for finding the best virtual server.
