BlueHost Vs GoDaddy

[crazypenguin]

Originally Posted by benjee68

Wow. What's up with the hate for Bluehost in here?

Bluehost has been hosting dozens of my sites for years and I've had very minimal issues with them.

Bluehost has been named top 3 in almost every Top 10 domain listings category for the past 3 years that I know of.

I would rank Bluehost in the top ten WORST hosting companies. My experience has been nothing but problems one way or another with Bluehost. My email was down 2/3 of the time on one of my accounts for almost a month. Read about it here
Even after they said it was fixed I still had problems receiving emails. Without the ability to send email notifications the website was worthless to me. Bluehost never tried to make any compensation to me for the down time problem. I finally ended up using a gmail account to get around my email notification problem for my forum.

On another Bluehost account I also had email problems and the website loaded very slowly. This may have been due to hard drive being nearly full. Look here.
It is my opinion that Bluehost crams too many accounts on one server therefore overloading the resources on each server.

The bottom line from my experience with Bluehost it did not work for me. My advice would be to keep on looking and not go with Bluehost or Godaddy.

Read the forums at Bluehostforums.com, search the net, and read hosting reviews and I guarantee you - you will find that many people find Bluehost to be unacceptable. It is definitely is not 0.0001 % as Felgall would like you to believe. It is much, much higher.

BTW Felgall is a fanboy moderator at Bluehostforum.com

[LeeU]

Also note that what Bink said (re: not being open on Sunday) is a year and a half old. They now provide service (and good one at that) 24/7.

[felgall]

BlueHost are now using cPanel 11.

All big companies will have a percentage of people who are not happy with the service and are very vocal about it. They would make up about 0.0001% of BlueHost and GoDaddy users if that. With the huge number of people using both hosting providers this still means that there are lots of people complaining but they are such a small percentage of the total users that if they weren't so vocal about the problems that they are having (most of which are probably their own fault) you would never spot them in the crowd of satisfied users.

[benjee68]

Originally Posted by felgall

BlueHost are now using cPanel 11.

All big companies will have a percentage of people who are not happy with the service and are very vocal about it. They would make up about 0.0001% of BlueHost and GoDaddy users if that. With the huge number of people using both hosting providers this still means that there are lots of people complaining but they are such a small percentage of the total users that if they weren't so vocal about the problems that they are having (most of which are probably their own fault) you would never spot them in the crowd of satisfied users.

very well said felgall

[mattE]

I would go with neither,
media temple has by far the BEST support I have ever received from a hosting company and have very reasonable prices.
I currently have around 40 domains hosted through them and with my base subscription still have another 160 to go
they were highly recommended to me, I can only pass on the favor

[braydond]

Most of the large companies treat you like nobodies...

[felgall]

I have had almost no problems whatever with Bluehost. Those few problems were quickly resolved when I contacted their support staff. I currently have two domains hosted in my account there with space for another 10,000 or so (probably take me a few centuries to set up all those sites and Bluehost will probably have quadrupled the space and bandwidth allocation by the end of the year so I will take even longer to fill the extra space - will never need the unlimited number of domains that they allow).

The one experience that I had with GoDaddy was in helping someone who had purchased a Paypal IPN script from me on their hosting. The script didn't want to work there and GoDaddy support wasn't interested. I finallg got a solution from a Paypal staff member who knew about the weird nonstandard proxy setup that GoDaddy use that makes them different from most other hosting and how to correct the script to handle both the World Wide Web and GoDaddy.

[braydond]

Alexander Karamushko, Sun Aug 12 11:00:04 2007
Ticket Status was changed from Open to Resolved

Hello
Thank you for the word to support.

I regret, but in current moment we cannot do anything with this, because our php running as module for Apache web server, and therefore php also running under apache user httpd, but he cannot write to your folders with permissions 755, therefore all folders in which php will write files or create folder should have 777 access permissions.

Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us anytime, we are available 24/7.
Kind regards,
Alexander Karamushko
Technical Support


___________________________________________________________

Stay away from IX web hosting. I'm doing a CMS site for a cutomer on there now and you have to set all permissions to 777. Insecure servers and bad support. It's only first level tech support on phone they do not have access to servers. You have to email a ticket and then you'll hear something back in 24 hrs. SUCKS!!!!

[inaga]

It depends.

GoDaddy is great for buying domain names alone, but BlueHost is great for hosting because its prices are so low.

I would reccomend BlueHost since I use it for a certain website I own and it works fine. Probably I'm not getting any errors because the site does not have many scripts and traffic, but I think I will return to BlueHost in the future.


______________
WebLOAD is an open source performance testing tool for internet applications.

[sitesbuysell]

I think Bluehost are ok for hosting but I haven't tried them for domains, for domains I prefer Godaddy or latley I use MyDomain.com & I have been getting 15% off their using coupon bargaincat.com with orders plus cheap .info domains. I have also found Moniker and Stargate are also good registers. There are also quite a few sites offering coupons for gadaddy to save on your ordersm at the moment you can get dot coms for around $7.

[felgall]

BlueHost are hosting over 600,000 domains. If more than 0.0001% of them were having problems then their forum would be swamped with complaints.

The only reason I ended up being a moderator on the BlueHost forum is that it is one of several different forums that I visit each day where I try to help people out with solving their computer problems and looking for ideas for pages to add to my web site. BlueHost were looking for extra moderators for the forum and since I am posting hopefully helpful answers on a regular basis they asked me if I would assist in moderating the forum as well.

Hosting providers such as BlueHost (and most others for that matter) have a particular target market in mind for the hosting that they provide. If the type of site you have fits their target market then you will seldom have problems with their service. If the type of site you have doesn't fit their target market then you may have problems. BlueHost give people the opportuniity to find out if your site fits their target market by offering to refund your money if you are not happy with their service (prorated after the first month). So if your site doesn't work on BlueHost then you can get all your money back and move elsewhere.

BlueHost hosting is primarily designed for static sites (regardless of visitor numbers) and dynamic sites with smallish numbers of visitors. You should be able to have millions of people visit static pages on BlueHost each day without problems. If you use caching properly on a dynamic site you should be able to have at least tens of thousands of visitors daily without problems. If you have really huge numbers of visitors or are using a dynamic script that is resource intensive with small numbers of visitors then BlueHost hosting is not designed to suit your type of site and you will have problems if you try to host your site there. Those types of sites need a different level of hosting to that which BlueHost (and similar providers such as GoDaddy) provide.

BlueHost hosting happens to suit the sites that I have hosted there (several thousand static pages, a couple of wordpress blogs with caching enabled and a membership site using code I wrote myself - and several thousand visitors a day). If I had a lot more people visiting the membership site then I would need to look into either implementing caching into that site so as to reduce the amount of CPU that it uses or move to hosting that has higher CPU limits (which would probably be more expensive hosting).

Basically you pay for what you get and if several hundred static sites can share one server without overloading the CPU then it is much cheaper for those sites to host on a server that places several hundred sites on a server like that than it would be for them to host on a server that only hosts a dozen or so sites on the server in order to make available a much higher CPU usage that the static sites don't need (but which a dynamic site that gets lots of visitors and doesn't cache pages would need).

If you have a supercharged V8 engine then you don't buy a small car and expect the engine to fit, you'd buy a larger car that has space for a large engine. The same applies to websites and hosting as applies to engines and cars. You need to choose hosting that supplies the resources that your site requires and if you need more than minimal CPU for your site to run you need to buy more expensive hosting that puts fewer sites on each server so that the required CPU is available.

It all comes down to purchasing the appropriate hosting for your site. Those who are unhappy with what they have got from any of the major hosting providers have simply selected the wrong sort of hosting for what their site needs. In tat situation what distinguishes the different hosting providers is their willingness to refund your money. The better web hosts will give you a refund even though you were the one who made the mistake of choosing the wrong sort of hosting in the first place.

[crazypenguin]

Originally Posted by felgall

BlueHost are hosting over 600,000 domains. If more than 0.0001% of them were having problems then their forum would be swamped with complaints.

BlueHost hosting is primarily designed for static sites (regardless of visitor numbers) and dynamic sites with smallish numbers of visitors. You should be able to have millions of people visit static pages on BlueHost each day without problems. If you use caching properly on a dynamic site you should be able to have at least tens of thousands of visitors daily without problems. If you have really huge numbers of visitors or are using a dynamic script that is resource intensive with small numbers of visitors then BlueHost hosting is not designed to suit your type of site and you will have problems if you try to host your site there. Those types of sites need a different level of hosting to that which BlueHost (and similar providers such as GoDaddy) provide.

The reality exists many people are not happy with Bluehost and are leaving to a company that can meet their needs and expectations. From what I have seen technical support is over whelmed at Bluehost and cannot handle the load put on them. People are complaining all over the internet about waiting 30 to 40 minutes on hold just to hung up on and had to call back again. The same goes for unanswered support tickets. As far as making negative comments about Bluehost on Bluehostforum.com, the comments have a tendency to be deleted as to reduce bad publicity for Bluehost.

The one thing I will agree with you on is about all Bluehost is good for is hosting static sites as long as their servers are up.

BTW did you even check on the link to the Bluehostforum.com to see what problems I had with Bluehost? They were all technical problems on Bluehosts end and none on my end.

So one other question, are you a Bluehost affiliate seller?

The bottom line is Bluehost did not work for me. Everything I had run on Bluehost I have run on at least three other hosting providers without any problems.

My experience with Bluehost has been very, very bad. I have tried over 20 hosting providers so I do know the good ones from the bad. Yes, I rate them as one of the WORST hosting providers.

I am not here for an argument, debate, discussion, or a flame war.

I came here to let people know my experience with Bluehost has been horrible. I am glad you are happy with them.

[jeeba]

Originally Posted by felgall

It all comes down to purchasing the appropriate hosting for your site. Those who are unhappy with what they have got from any of the major hosting providers have simply selected the wrong sort of hosting for what their site needs. In tat situation what distinguishes the different hosting providers is their willingness to refund your money. The better web hosts will give you a refund even though you were the one who made the mistake of choosing the wrong sort of hosting in the first place.

Just my two cents, Currently Im searching for a Host with a lot of databases, I plan to use it for a full WEB 2.0 service, so, i need fast access to the database... ergo, a lot of processor time. I looked at bluehost because they sell you 100 Mysql and 100 Postgres databases with the package but is like contradictory at least (not to say misleading) that if Bluehost its about Static Pages, why they give us 100 databases? ( and im not talking about using the postgres databases) , I would like to know if bluehost is a good option if i want to use at least 50 of their databases, every one with at least 50 tables, and alot of queries going around ( so the option of cacheing pages will not be good).

I had a bad experience with godaddy like 4 year ago, i was looking for a host and i was an absolute newbie on that, i look at goddady because of google adds, it "hosted" good (my page was static at the time) , but when i wanted to make it dinamic, and ask a few question to their customer support, they just couldn't help me , and it was a simple technical question. their answered me every question i had by email in a day interval, but i dont know how they serivce will be now.

BTW this is an excellent thread , it make me register here

[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.

[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?