Fasthosts :(

[amestaper]

Im looking for a new webhosting company. It seems the package Fasthosts signed me up to was a barebones setup and every additional bolt on always costs more than rival hosting companies appear to be charging for all inclusive hosting. The straw that broke the camels back was a control panel page requiring I sign up for another year of grief so my sites could be hosted on the most up to date Apache server? In all honesty I probably would have accepted that if they would just address the issues in my support tickets and fix it themselves instead of making me run around in circles.

I was recommended Hostpapa. Has anyone at SBF had any dealings with them?

 

[Gouldie0]

I haven't had any dealings with Hostpapa, but I can highly recommend these guys for hosting UK Web Hosting Solutions - Equiphase - Welcome

What type of service are you looking for? Just out of interest as you referred to 'every additional bolt on' costing more money.

Kind Regards

Neil

 

[Mike Lewis]

I've always had good service from Compila (Website Hosting - High Quality, Voted NO1 Website Hosting). They offer a useful range of options, and their support is above average.

I don't know how they compare on price - and, to be honest, I don't really care. All web hosting seems absurdly cheap, and a few pounds per year either way wouldn't make any difference to my choice of company.

Mike

 

[amestaper]

MySQL databases, password protected .htpasswd folders and SSL are a few I can think of that werent installed as default. I want all of these, PHP 5 support, .htaccess control, a cPanel that takes automatic site backups and the ability to host multiple domains with minimal downtime in one package.

 

[stugster]

Hey, Chuck me a PM Alex. We can sort you out

Our last real dealing with Fasthosts was when they were hacked and kindly gave out unencrypted passwords to the hackers.

 

[LumleyMedia]

We can do hosting for the year with a .co.uk domain name for £50 per year.

Email alan@lumleymedia.co.uk or ryan@lumleycreations.co.uk and we will be more than happy to help.

 

[iMS]

I recommend Hostgator to all clients and people who ask this question. Yes, an American based company but in this day and age anyone who chooses a hosting provider with geographical location in mind is missing the point of the internet!

Great support (24/7 livechat - all issues, and I've had some MAJOR issues, sorted there and then),around $7 a month for basic package which gives you everything you need and a lot more...

Everyone has their own favorite hosting company and Hostgator is mine... I'm sure there are many equally as good so make sure you review thoroughly before signing up

 

[stugster]

but in this day and age anyone who chooses a hosting provider with geographical location in mind is missing the point of the internet!

I hate to say it, but I whole-heartily disagree.

If your client-base is UK, get a server in the UK. SEO reasons aside, there are numerous reasons for getting a server in the UK rather than elsewhere.

The biggest one is page-load times (by the way, Google have just included Page Load in their Analytics software).

The fact the server is in the U.S. means more hops, and more hops mean more points of failure. As an example, our UK server traceroute results show only 10 hops. A traceroute from the same ISP to hostgator's www.hostgator.com server shows a staggering 30 hops.

Then you've got the legal points to consider. Where is that data? If it's not in the UK, what would the Information Commissioner say if you're storing personal details? How do you chase them legally if they do something really daft?

And lastly, and most importantly, you're spending that pound in the States, when you could be spending it with a company in the UK - or even Scotland

 

[iMS]

Stugster,

That's fine, it's all about opinions. We can have a good debate on the matter though, of course. I'm no techy, I have techy friends and colleagues right enough but I look at things from a marketing perspective first and foremost. I must admit, most of your points are baffling to me because they seem to focus on minor points combined with lots of if's, but's and maybes to boot.

Firstly, and I mean this with all respect, the SEO benefits of server location are so minimal I wouldn't even begin to give it the smallest consideration. In fact, they are so miniscule (and yet to be proven without doubt) that it's like saying something like "turn your engine off at red lights as you save more petrol" or "if you watch anymore television your eyes will turn square!"

When we talk of SEO let's not belittle the subject by bringing server location into it. I've got close to hundreds of websites ranked on the first page of Google (many of those in positions 1,2,3 - sequentially) using an American based hosting firm. Let's get down and dirty with LSI, Keyword Density and Link Building strategies when referencing SEO and leave the notion that server location plays any part in it to those who don't really understand the concept.

As for page load times - I must confess I don't pay too much attention to those and won't claim to be an expert on them at all. Could you explain the load time difference between a site hosted on US servers compared to one hosted on UK servers? Are we talking a matter of 1,2,3 or even more seconds? Again, from a standpoint of not paying any attention, I've never noticed a difference between the time it takes my sites (&clients) to load as opposed to any other website I visit. Also, it never even hits home when I visit prominent US based websites when surfing that the load times are any different.. which I assume 99.9% of website visitors will feel as well.

In terms of your legal points... surely this Commissioner would lobby to forbid any UK based website owner from hosting with a US hosting provider if it was so hard to deal with from a legal standpoint? Chances are if they do something really "daft" they are in dire straits... how would you chase a UK based hosting firm who did something "daft?" Seriously, I'd love to know.

And as for spending the pound in the States instead of in Scotland... what kind of computer are you using? What about your jeans? Trainers? Ever eaten a McDonalds? I hear Abercrombie make some great shirts... pity I'll never be able to try them as I am confined to only wearing Pringle (joke... but I am surprised you mention this point as being the most important of your retort.)

I'm all for helping our own and if you can show me a hosting company that provides me with everything Hostgator does - especially in terms of 24/7 support - I may even consider switching ALL my websites over.

Have a great weekend!

I hate to say it, but I whole-heartily disagree.

If your client-base is UK, get a server in the UK. SEO reasons aside, there are numerous reasons for getting a server in the UK rather than elsewhere.

The biggest one is page-load times (by the way, Google have just included Page Load in their Analytics software).

The fact the server is in the U.S. means more hops, and more hops mean more points of failure. As an example, our UK server traceroute results show only 10 hops. A traceroute from the same ISP to hostgator's www.hostgator.com server shows a staggering 30 hops.

Then you've got the legal points to consider. Where is that data? If it's not in the UK, what would the Information Commissioner say if you're storing personal details? How do you chase them legally if they do something really daft?

And lastly, and most importantly, you're spending that pound in the States, when you could be spending it with a company in the UK - or even Scotland

 

[stugster]

Re page loading times... your site (imarketingscotland) too me 10 seconds to get.
Whereas I just hit a website hosted in the UK (London),and it took 3 seconds.

That's a considerable difference, and one that has shown can lead to users leaving the site or making the wrong assumption that there isn't a site there at all (the DNS request took ages for me).

There are many many other reasons than the ones I suggested for hosting in the UK.

You seem to have mixed two of my points (one being the ICO, the other being a legal case against the company). My first point is that as per the Data Protection Act, whilst I don't profess to be an expert, it's not a legal requirement to keep the data in the UK, it's going to be a damn sight harder to prove you're complying with the act if the data is half way around the world. This is a pretty minor point, but one that shouldn't be completely overlooked to save a quid or two.

I would have to argue that from an SEO perspective, a website hosted on a UK IP address with UK Servers on a .uk domain will definitely rank higher (on a like-for-like basis) for a .uk site on a U.S. server. I've tried this myself. You also have Google themselves shouting about the importance of fast load times for the end user.

I do realise that this is one of those endless debates, with so many factors (and factors that are difficult to prove too),and that people will have their own preferences. Maybe it would be interesting to turn it on your head and ask you why you prefer a hosting provider so far away?

 

[iMS]

Page load times on iMS are slow in the meantime as we try out a new content slider coupled with HD videos on the homepage... we know it's loading slow at the minute and are looking at ways to speed this up.

What you are saying is that there is a 7 second difference due to being hosted in the US as opposed to the UK? If that's the case, I'll get it switched asap... however, we both know that's not true at all. If there's any difference it's a matter of milliseconds and not, as you've suggested, 7 seconds. It's a ludicrous point to be making. I mean, what I'm trying to say is that I'm gobsmacked you would even try and pass off a 7 SECOND difference due to server location!

And you say, quote "to save a quid or two" - hosting my websites in the US has NOTHING to do with saving a quid or two. It's down to the same reasons as most purchases we make in life in life are - features and benefits.

As for your SEO reasoning and statement that ".uk domain hosted on UK servers with UK IP address will rank higher on a like for like basis than a .uk site on US servers." I'm not arguing this point and if you read my reply you'll see that. What I am saying is that is makes such a minute difference that it's not worth worrying about. If you do your SEO in the right manner, where your website is located will have absolutely no bearing on where you rank in the search engines.

If you thought it through you'd see that was the case. My websites that rank top in Google are hosted in the USA and are ALL .com extensions. They ALL outrank .co.uk domain names that are more than likely hosted in the UK with UK IP addresses.

The only people who worry about trivial things like server location from an SEO standpoint are those who really don't know what they are doing and cling to facts like you posted thinking it's going to help them rank higher in the search engines. Sad, but true.

Finally, you ask "why you prefer a hosting provider so far away?" If you actually read my initial reply you'd have seen the reasons I prefer using Hostgator. 24/7 Livechat support, great technical support and ease of use, great reseller and Dedicated Servers if required, great customer service, 99.9% uptime that actually lives up to it's promise...

Again, location doesn't bother me one little bit. I'm not going through life and business worrying about where I source my neccesseties from. Especially in the world of the internet where location is deemed worthless.

It is an endless debate and we could go round in circles all day offering our differing opinions. It's good and healthy to do so!

 

[stugster]

It's interesting in the world of SEO that when someone questions a particular part of the Google Algorithm and it's not what the other person believes, the "those who really don't know what they're doing" statements come out.

I've seen this time and time again from various forums, including this one.

Just an interesting point.

 

[iMS]

Mornin' Stugster,

For the record, I was not having a pop at you. I was merely trying to state that the vast majority of business owners cling onto minor points like server location and go on thinking that it is a major factor in how well their site will rank when it isn't. They then wonder why they can't get their site to rank highly even though they have a .uk domain hosted in the UK. It's a very trivial matter and I was pointing out that many people treat it like a major matter.

Again, apologies if you felt I was having a pop at your knowledge as I most certainly wasn't. I'm not here to get into arguments but you must admit healthy discussion can only be beneficial for the forum.

Could you perhaps look at the other points I made and tell us all what you think of those as well?

It's interesting in the world of SEO that when someone questions a particular part of the Google Algorithm and it's not what the other person believes, the "those who really don't know what they're doing" statements come out.

I've seen this time and time again from various forums, including this one.

Just an interesting point.

 

[stugster]

Fair enough

It is an endless debate and we could go round in circles all day offering our differing opinions. It's good and healthy to do so!

I think you're right here. It's one of those things (especially with Google) in that there's no real definitive answer. You may be right, and I may be putting far too much weight on things. My point should maybe have been more from a "safe than sorry" angle, in that hosting in the UK is so easy to do, why would you choose otherwise.

HostGator are a big company. They're one of the biggest in the US. It's great to hear you have such fantastic support from them, but that's not always the case for the big hosting companies (look at Fasthosts).

I think it would be wise to just agree that location isn't important enough for an eight-page forum debate

 

[gib123]

I switched to vidahost..

Now, im far from tech-minded, but its cheap, it does what i want, and every time i open a ticket, its responded to in less than 5 mins.

based in the UK and i havent had any problems with it yet.

They have different packages from low tech bare bones, up to top tech packages but i wasnt interested in picking and choosing what services i needed so i went with the startup package.

No problems so far, im impressed..

 

[amestaper]

Thanks all for the explanatory hosting in's, out's, and shake it all abouts. :blink:
I will get back to you when we're ready to make the switchover Stuart.

 

[BioOutsource]

I'm also kind of annoyed with my Mochahost, although that is the best and cheapest deal in market however recently my all domains got down for around a week and suffered serious problems with them. I'm also looking for slightly cheap yet reliable windows hosting company.

 

[aviemorebusiness]

Wow BioOutsource if we had domains down for around a week we would be seeking compensation from Mochahost - that is completely and utterly unacceptable.

From our point of view we have used www.123connect.co.uk who are based in Essex, their support is friendly, efficient and you deal with a person who can speak English and who is awake at the same time as you are - another factor in choosing a UK based provider - if anyone is interested then call them and speak to Jeff or Kevin, both extremely competant and can usually cut through all the techincal babble. Not the cheapest on the market, but then the old saying 'you pay peanuts you get monkeys' should be in the back of your mind.

The other company we use - or I should say our developer uses for CMS based sites is www.1and1.co.uk again excellent customer service and 99.9% uptime on the server - which by the way is the same for 123connect.

Hope that helps. (K)

 

[johnmessingham]

Two companies I use for hosting services are http://www.4uhosting.co.uk and www.1and1.co.uk.

 

[ScotComp]

We've got hosting packages available http://www.scotcomp.co.uk/web-design-scotland-glasgow/web-hosting-scotland/

We're more than willing to do discounts for SBF members as well