BlueHost Vs GoDaddy

[felgall]

If you are going to need lots of processing time then you need to be looking at VPS or dedicated hosting where you get most or all of the processing power of the server available for your use rather than shared hosting where you get only a very low percentage. BlueHost currently only offer shared hosting (but are talking about adding more powerful options once they get their new data centre set up). For sites that only get a few visitors trying to access the databases at a time shared hosting can be quite adequate provided that you have properly optimised databases. If you have thousands of visitors trying to access the database at the same time then shared hosting will not have sufficient resources.

[bluehostrocks]

Originally Posted by webgovernor

Ugh, Bluehost. I've been attempting to backup my databases (so I can just copy over my CMS installs, hopefully), I can't handle them anymore. I read the review on octonline.org and they gave the Hostmonster.com/Bluehost a 97% uptime average (using basic state and site probe). Apparently this average drops as the response times increase, and Bluehost racks up a 81ms average, while Godaddy only had a 20(something)ms response time, and better uptime.

What I found interesting is that it took approximately 7 hours to transfer 506 MB of data onto my Bluehost account (1.5Mb upload, shared), and only half an hour on my Alterhosting account (same line). Also, only with Bluehost does filezilla spit out "Your bandwidth is limited."

Although I've heard some bad things about godaddy too, but at least they have better stats in the review. Go with godaddy IMO.

With the moving situation, it can be quite tedious. PHPMyAdmin helps (export DATA and STRUCTURE), and with Bluehosts transfer times it may take decades to accomplish.

Oh, and thanks for publishing that info felgall, it's pretty interesting.

Bluehost does not throttle the ftp upload speed. Since your on a shared server you could be uploading at the same time others are.

edit by admin: we are more cordial than that here. Thank you

[felgall]

Probably the biggest difference between BlueHost and GoDaddy is that GoDaddy is primarily a domain registrar who does hosting as an add-on to their main business while BlueHost is primarily a hosting provider who registers domains as an add-on to their main business. In each case you would expect them to spend more resources on their main businessand less on the add-on.

[moontree]

Here is my positive review of bluehost. I'm a real person. You have my word that in no way am I profiting from recommending bluehost, and I am in no way affiliated with bluehost other than the fact that I'm a customer.

I've had bad experiences with inexpensive web hosts before. I've used 123ehost.com and ehostpros.com. So I decided to switch webhosts yet again and this time I did a lot of research. I determined that bluehost was the best option despite a few emphatic negative reviews.

I've been using bluehost for close to a year now. So far bluehost has exceeded my expectations. Here is why:

1- Uptime: I'm really sensitive about uptime because my last webhost was so horrible in this regard. My site was down frequently and for extended periods. My email wouldn't work at crucial moments (and I use my email to run my business). As for bluehost, I'm pleased to report that at least so far, this has not been a problem. I use a free tool called Montastic to monitor my site's uptime, and it appears that there is very little down time. When there is down time it is quite short.

2- Generosity, simplicity, and value: bluehost sells one plan and one plan only, and with that plan you get everything under the sun. It's a very generous plan. For example, you get unlimited space. It's nice to not have to worry about whether you have the right plan. It is not the cheapest webhosting in the world, but it's darn cheap, and it's the best value for the money.

3- Excellent tools: bluehost uses a much cooler version of cpanel than my last webhost. It's very awesome.

And I really like the domain management system. It's easy to use and gives you a high level of control, and bluehost makes it easy to transfer a domain, unlike my other webhosts that purposefully made it difficult in order to discourage you from leaving their service.

You also get Simple Scripts, which ROCKS. I have installed Joomla, PhpBB, and ModX using Simple Scripts. If it weren't for bluehost I probably would never have even heard of ModX, which is now my CMS of choice. You also have access to other popular tools like WordPress, Drupal, and a bunch of other stuff. Installing and updating these packages can normally be daunting, but Simple Scripts does it with just a click, and it simply works.

The list of tools goes on and on. As for databases, in addition to mysql you can also use postgresql, which is nice. Also you have the ability to connect to your mysql server remotely. My other webhosts didn't offer this. I've just started using this feature and it's super neat.

As for customer service, before I signed up for an account I did an experiment. I pretended I was an existing customer and called their service desk to see how long it would take to get to a representative. I got to a representative quickly, and they were friendly and seemed helpful and knowledgeable. I've never needed to call them since signing up for the service, so I don't know how quickly they handle real problems. (My previous webhost didn't offer phone support. You had to open a trouble ticket or use an online chat tool.)

...So, those are the reasons why I'm happy with bluehost so far, and why I would recommend it. It could very well be the best web host in its class.

However, it's possible that bluehost is NOT the class of web host that is right for your needs.

The idea of bluehost, as I understand it, is that they offer a very generous standard package. And they have a sort of genius for creating a straightforward, streamlined user experience. They try to offer any tool that might be useful to a relatively large segment of their customer base, as long as that tool works smoothly in a shared hosting environment. If this package fits your needs then you'll probably be quite happy with bluehost. But if you have any special requirements whatsoever, then you'd probably be better off with a company that offers more personalized service.

Do I have anything bad to say about bluehost? Ironically while writing this positive review of bluehost, I went to their website and the page "tell_me_more.html" timed out while I tried loading it. That is not normal. Normally I find their servers to be satisfactorily responsive. But it does happen on occasion that their servers seem to get somewhat sluggish.

(Therefore, at least for now I also have an account with an other webhost! This way I know I'll always be able to at least send email from ONE of my accounts. Also, it's a good idea to use Google Apps to handle your email, which you can do by changing MX entries in bluehost.)

As for GoDaddy, I've only used them for backordering a domain, which by the way didn't work. (Pool.com did work.) In my limited experience with GoDaddy, I've found their website to be difficult to navigate and plagued with advertisements for their various other services. I personally wouldn't touch their web hosting service with a ten foot pole, but admittedly my impression of GoDaddy is not based on experience with their webhosting service, it's more a feeling I get about them.

Lastly, I feel bad for the guy on here who had that nightmare experience with bluehost. I've come across a handful of these posts, what might be called anti-testimonials. I almost didn't use bluehost because of them. However, I've learned that you have to take anti-testimonials on the Internet with a grain of salt. I do not mean to diminish that guy's experience in any way. I've had my own nightmare experiences with webhosts, and have even written my own anti-testimonials. As a shopper, I find that such anti-testimonials do offer useful information and should be factored in to decisions. (In the case of bluehost, the anti-testimonials indicate to me that the support staff can sometimes be fickle.) But most people who have positive experiences never take the time to write reviews, while people who have negative experiences are frustrated and need an outlet, and are looking for a way to punish the company. You will find anti-testimonials for EVERY major web host. If bluehost handles 1,000 support complaints successfully, you may never hear about it. But if they screw up just 1 time it can be posted all over the Internet.

That's why I decided to post this review. I felt bluehost wasn't getting a fair shake.

The shared webhosting world is extremely competitive. Bluehost has to compete with companies based out of Egypt and other places where overhead is much cheaper. Nevertheless, even with offices and a support team based in North America (Utah), bluehost has managed to offer a comprehensive webhosting package for a competitive price. As far as I can tell from my first year as their customer, they're a good company, and for shared webhosting they seem to be an excellent choice.

[Shorts]

Personally I use 1&1 for most of my hosting. .ME domains I use Colossalhost.com and register the domains through Directnic.com . Yes, Directnic is a tad bit more expensive than other places but I have never had a problem with them since 2002. Even had lapsed a good deal on some of my domains names and had zero problems reupping them.

Colossalhost.com have had great service with them since 2002 as well.

[ahk2chan]

Here is a not-so-good exposure of GoDaddy...

http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/03...pired-domains/

[tracknut]

Originally Posted by ahk2chan

Here is a not-so-good exposure of GoDaddy...

Anyone that does an internet business as large as either of these guys will have trouble with some of its customers. Here's some folks that hate Bluehost - http://www.vistainter.com/reviews/B/bluehost.com/ - big deal.

Personally I tend to avoid the "hate" sites, because they tend to collect and inappropriately exaggerate an issue. More folks are willing to complain about a problem than to praise good service, you know. Look at the service levels they offer for the price, decide if those are acceptable to you, and just do it. It's quite easy to change hosts is you made a mistake.

Dave

[ajsloan]

I used Bluehost as my host from 2003 - 2009 and I thought they were the best until they shut my sites down without telling me. My main site is one I use for school. I teach high school technology including web design. One day in January I went to update my site and instead of my site there was a message saying the site was down.

I called Bluehost and was told that I was using too much space and I had to delete it before they would put my site back up. One of the reasons I used bluehost because they advertised unlimited space. When I looked at the amount of space I was using it was not very much.

Anyways, I deleted a bunch of stuff related to students files such as their Flash projects and Bluehost still refused to bring my site live. I even had a conversation with Matt Heaton.

I'm not sure what is going on at Bluehost these days but I would have to say that I would not use them at this time. I'm still searching for a reliable host. Hmmm maybe I should host it myself. Anyway that is my 2 cents. Before January I would have highly recommended Bluehost but not now.

[jimfromtexas]

A pure open source internet company that I use is TexasIntegratedServices

[alexlao]

I use GoDaddy and fatcow, until the problems were not.

[Dasher]

Wow - Lots of heated opinions. I have 5 web sites hosted on Bluehost, and have never had a problem. They do not insert code into your pages. No problems with service issues, which have been very few.

All of my sites use PHP, and 3 use MySQL, but they all load very fast. FTP is not as quick as it could be but I think that is more of a Comcast issue than Bluehost.

I have been using them for over 2 years, and have no complaints.

[felgall]

To bring it back to the original question regarding BlueHost and Godaddy.

BlueHost is a web hosting provider.
GoDaddy is a domain registrar.

While you can get both your domain and hosting from either GoDaddy are going to provide the better service for the domain and BlueHost are going to provide the better service for the hosting. Neither puts much effort into the main service provided by the other as in each case it is not their main business.

[jjschade]

If it's a two words domain name to the left of the period, and the .com version is taken, should I pick a different extension, or hyphenate the two words, considering all pros and cons having to do with site visitor familiarily, search engine stuff, and all other factors that could help or hurt in the long run.

i.e. I want www.johndoe.com but it's taken. Which is better if both are available, www.john-doe.com or www.johndoe.net?

Different people have given me different opinions. Person #1 claims that if someone googles john doe and I hypenated it, my search engine priority would be below all other extenstions such as johndoe.net, johndoe.org, johndoe.info, unless I purchased SEO software and provided 'john-doe' as a keyword to get it bumped up with the search engine. (this person sells such software and viewed me as a possible registrar customer, so they may be biased). But he went on to say that if someone googled 'john doe' without the hypen, it wouldn't matter which extension you picked, it would rank just as high as .com if I had chosen .org, .net, .info, etc.

Another person said that they use hyphens all the time even when they don't have to in order to make it easier on search engines to split up words that would otherwise run together. (even when there's no risk of the search engine splitting the words in the wrong places). He uses lots of sub-domains for motorcycle discussion sites, for example something like

yamaha-750.cycletalk.com instead of yamaha750.cycletalk.com

For the purposes of this post, assume that choosing an alternate besides .com would NOT require me to choose one that was not accurately descriptive. i.e. I would not be forced to choose .org when it's not really an organization, or .info when it's not really a site that provides info.

Of course, .net could be used for anything.

Assume I have no choice with what the two words would be. I can't say 'johndowspeaks' or 'johndowreports'

The two words I'm using, and ONLY two, has no other option. They're either either hypenated, or not. I can't add, remove, or change those two words.

Thoughts?

[Shorts]

Personally my thoughts would be to grab the one without a hyphen. More of a preference thing, don't really trust domain names that have hyphens in them (sub domains and folders they're fine).

However, what are your thoughts on buying both? Many of my domain names have alternate versions.

[everquest]

This is an old topic but the question still is an evergreen one. There is this bluehost vs godaddy review that looks at the negative and positive reviews of both hosting companies. Many would disagree but it looks like Bluehost is the winner...